Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Outlaw, 748 N.W.2d 349.

135 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
However, because Lugo failed to object to the 6 inclusion of this offense in his criminal-history score, and the state was never provided an opportunity to submit eviden ce regarding it, the proper re medy is to remand for an opportunity for the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Thomas Saari Minn. Ct. App. 2021
360 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allen Gustafson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If the state fails to meet its burden of proof and the defendant does not object to the calculation of his or he r criminal-history score, we remand to allow the state “to further develop the sentencing r ecord so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Douglas Flantz Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Antonio Urena-Muro Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Strobel, d at 577 (permitting the state “to develop the record regarding the type and amount of controlled substance underlying” the prior conviction); (remanding with similar instructions where the defendant “did not object to the district court’s de termination that his out -of-state convictions were felonies”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Lee Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Jul.
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Simon Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Outlaw , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); (citing Outlaw to support a remand to supplement the sentencing record), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Katherine James Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Milo Calvin Ojohn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. May 6, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Conrad James Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(remanding with instructions that the state be allowed to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately determine defendant’s criminal-history score, where the defendant failed to object to the criminal - history-score calculation at sentencing), review d
State of Minnesota v. Roy Darnell Barron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When a defendant fails to object to the district court’s cal culation of the CHS and the state’s evidence is insufficient to carry its burden of proof as to the CHS, the proper remedy is to remand the matter to give the state an opportunity “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); see also State v. Strobel, 921 aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When an appellant fails to object to the district court’s criminal-history-score calculation and the state did not carry its burden at sentencing, the proper remedy is to reverse and remand “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied 9 (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Sandy Woodrow Yancy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008), in support of this alternative argument.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua James Dennison Minn. Ct. App. 2020
On remand, the dist rict court should provide the state an opportunity “to further develop the sentenci ng record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” State v. Outlaw , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Rafie Mullins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Because Mullins did not object to the district court’s calculation of his 9 criminal-history score and the state’s evidence was insufficient to carry its burden of proof, we remand the matter “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. John Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Outlaw , (concluding that if the state’s evidence is insufficient to carry its burden of proof as to the defendant’s criminal-history score, the proper remedy was to remand the matter for an opportunity for the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriate
State of Minnesota v. Terry Izeal Heggs Minn. Ct. App. 2020
13 When a defendant fails to object to the district court’s calculation of his criminal- history score and the state’s evidence was insufficient to carry its burden of proof as to the score, the proper remedy is to remand the matter for an opportunity for the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); see also, e.g., Reece, d at 826.
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Myron Remund Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(reversing and remanding for the district court to determine the number of out-of-state convictions that constituted prior felonies), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Moses Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Outlaw , (reversing and remanding for district court to determine whether out -of-state convictions can be counted as felonies for an enhanced sentence), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Bernard Nowels Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But deciding which “evidence to pr esent and which witnesses to call at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Billy Gene Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Outlaw , -56 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Odell NMN Branson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-57 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Acension Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
[and] a defe ndant may not waive revi ew of his criminal history score calculation.” State v. Maurstad , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (providing that an unauthorized sent ence includes one that is calculated on an incorrect criminal history score).
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
15 , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
(citing State v. Outlaw , , 356 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (remanding with similar instructions where the defendant "did not object to the district court's determination that his out-of-state convictions were felonies")).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Boyd Banwell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
As a rule, “[t]he state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence ‘the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state c onvictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.’” (), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Outlaw , d 349, 355 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (indicating that because “appellant did not object to the district court’s determination that his out-of-state convictions were felonies,” the state, on remand, was “permitte d to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court [could] ap
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Kohlwey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Outlaw , (permitting, on remand, further development of the sentencing record), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); see also Rhoades, d at 138 n.3, 140 (reversing sentence imposed for one count of possession of child pornography where state conceded that two convictions and sentences may ha
State of Minnesota v. Victor Ciriaco-Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Outlaw , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Douglas Ratcliff Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Outlaw , d 349, 356 (Minn. App. 2008) (remanding the issue of whether out-of-state convictions were felonies for sentencing purpose s, and permitting the state on r emand “to further develop the sentencing record”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Erik Heiderscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5-56 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Michael Windell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, (allowing the state to further develop the record on remand because defendant did not object to the district court’s determination that his out -of-state convictions were felonies) , review denied (Minn. 27 July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Zackery Charles Nathan Mills Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to justify consideration of out -of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” State v. Outlaw , (quotation omitted), 9 review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) .
State of Minnesota v. Christina Vanda Garza Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-57 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Brock Lawrence Altringer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate review of a defendant’s crimi nal-history score may not 5 be forfeited, “because a sentence based on an incorrect criminal hi story score is an illegal sent ence.” (Minn. App .
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Deangelo Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Gorman, d at 9-10 (finding pattern of criminal conduct for convictions that “involved assaultive behavior”); review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010) (finding pattern of criminal conduct for crimes committed to support defendant’s illegal drug habit); review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (finding pattern of criminal conduct in defendant’s seven prior burglary convictions).
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Cairo Melancon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) .
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Chapel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Outlaw , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Clifton Dale Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–56 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
Robert Lee Crum v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A sentence that is “based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Somboon Lor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Outlaw , , 356 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (stating that because a defendant "did not object to the district court's determination that his out-of-state convictions were felonies," the state "is permitted [on remand] to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriatel
State of Minnesota v. Scott Bernard Sheffield Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When a defendant does not object to a district court’s determination that his out-of-state conviction s are felonies, the state “is permitted to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) .
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Krumrie Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Sylvester Antoine Townsend Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied 1 Appellant is aware of this: he argues in his brief that the DSRA “reduced the severity of most fifth-degree controlled-substance crimes” and that “a fifth -degree possession controlled substance is now generally a gross misdeme
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Stevie Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Terran Marie Stukey Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).