Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Minnesota courts therefore do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
11 Minnesota courts “do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: W. S. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Erick Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erick Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] district court may not impose a no-contact order as part of an executed sentence unless the order is expressly authorized by statute.” d 308, 311 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. James William Kralik Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James William Kralik Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota courts “do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Because courts have authority to correct an illegal sentence at any time under Minn. R.Crim.
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Minnesota courts therefore do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Minnesota courts therefore do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within 6 the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4(a) (2012), but “‘the two-year time limit [in section 590.01, subdivision 4(a)] does not apply to motions properly filed under’ rule 27.03, subdivision 9.” Washington, d at 211 (alteration in original) (); (stating that a defendant cannot forfeit or waive review of an illegal sentence), review denied (Minn. 5 Sept.
Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
9); (citing rule 27.03, subdivision 9, on appeal in support of reasoning that appellant did not waive challenge to sentence by not presenting it to district court); (citing rule 27.03, subdivision 9, on appeal from resentencing in support of reasoning that appellant did not waive challenge to sentence by not presenting it to district court), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Brist 799 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Brist 799 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2011