Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Campbell, 814 N.W.2d 1.

90 citing documents.

Crow Wing County State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee LaFlex Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, … Minn. 2026
(“An issue is not properly before our court when it is raised ‘[f]or the first time in [a party’s] brief to our court.’ ” (alterations in original) ( n.4 (Minn. 2012))).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kappon Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B.1 (Supp. 2023) (providing that points should be added to a criminal- history score for prior felony convictions only when “ a felony sentence was stayed or imposed before the current sentencing or a stay of imposition of sentence was given before the current sentencing”)
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We may also consider “legislative history,” including publicly available documents regarding the commission’s deliberations, Scovel, d at 557-58, 557 n.12, and commission policy and official interpretations
State of Minnesota v. Walter William Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Walter William Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Loren Clyde Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Loren Clyde Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Lisa Stone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Invitation Homes, Inc., ... Minn. 2024
Lisa Stone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Invitation Homes, Inc., ... Minn. 2024
We have previously held that “[i]ssues not raised in the district court but raised for the first time on appeal are considered waived.” n.4 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
(“An issue is not properly before our court when it is raised ‘[f]or the first time in [a party’s] brief to our court.’ ” ( n.4 (Minn. 2012))).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ryan Shappell Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Campbell , (stating that the sentencing guidelines a pply only to felonies); State v. Williams , (describing the purpose of the sentencing guidelines ).
State of Minnesota v. Laura Cerda Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Raymond Cortez Steward, Minn. 2020
Before considering the merits of these claims, we must decide whether they are properly before us. An issue is not properly before our court when it is raised “[f]or the first time in [a party’s] brief to our court.” State v. Campbell , n.4 (Minn. 2012 ).
State of Minnesota v. Cortney John Edstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Fong Lee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Terrell Hemphill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is subject to de novo review) .
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Patrick Barnett Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Guidelines 1.B.19.a, 2.B.1 (Supp. 2017)
State of Minnesota v. Nikki Jo Hauser Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Anton Jermaine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
Scovel , d at 554-55 ; State v. Campbell , , 4 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Deangelas Demoyne Cook Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We apply the rules of statutory construction to our interpretation of the sentencing guidelines.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Troy Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Campbell , (“An offender’s criminal history is not factored into misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor sentencing.”).
State v. Watson 925 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Watson 925 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Campbell , , 7 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Chapel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
" State v. Oreskovich , , 926 (Minn. App. 2018) (quoting State v. Campbell , , 4 (Minn. 2012) ).
State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Defatte 921 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2016) ; see also State v. Campbell , , 4 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Lenny Paul Bissell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Like statutes, when the language of the sentencing guidelines is “plain and unambiguous, it is presumed to manifest legislative intent and [a reviewing court] must give it effect.”
State v. Scovel 916 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2018
State v. Scovel 916 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2018
See State v. Campbell , , 4 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. David Franklin Bentley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Oreskovich 915 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Oreskovich 915 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
While a district court's determination of a defendant's criminal-history score will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion, State v. Stillday , , 561 (Minn. App. 2002), we interpret the sentencing guidelines de novo and "apply the rules of statutory construction to our interpretation of the sentencing guidelines," State v. Campbell , , 4 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Justin Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
State v. Campbell , , 4 (Minn. 2012) (citing State v. Williams , , 523 (Minn. 2009) ).
State of Minnesota v. Damion Aharon Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Campbell , (“ We apply the rules of statutory construction to our interpretation of the sentencing guidelines.”).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Clem Kibble Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Tavon Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The purpose of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2016)
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Anthony Wittern Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We apply the rules of statutory construction to our interpretation of the sentencing guidelines.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Nelles Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mai Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
D E C I S I O N “Statutory construction and interpretation of the sentencing guidelines are subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Jawaun Tyreell Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Christopher Glass Minn. Ct. App. 2017
the supreme court addressed the determination of a criminal-h istory score under circumstances similar to Glass’s. The district court assigned Campbell one felony criminal-history po int for a 1995 robbery conviction for which Campbell had received a felony stay of imposition and a sentence within t
State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
Browder v. State 899 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 2017