Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. State, 794 N.W.2d 137.

41 citing documents.

State v. Watson 925 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Watson 925 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Anderson v. State , , 139 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Apr.
A17-0708 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
13 4(b) (2012); see also Anderson v. State , –41 (Minn. App. 2011) (explaining that the specific pr ovisions of the identity-theft st atute, which do not require proof of loss, control over the general restitution procedures, which require proof of loss), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Provost 901 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Provost 901 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
9, a court may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1372 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 137, 140 (Minn. App. 2011 ) (holding that, in the context of restitution awards, only a statute prescribing the amount of restitution for victims of a particular crime is more specific than the restitution statute).
Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey 890 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Emile Rey 890 N.W.2d 135 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4; -41 (Minn. App. 2011) (explaining that the specific provisions of the identity-theft statute, which do not require proof of loss, control over the general restitution procedures, which require proof of loss), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Tetee Saryee d/b/a Zion Home Care, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tetee Saryee d/b/a Zion Home Care, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The district court has broad discretion concerning matters of restitution as long as a sufficient factual basis underlies its decision regarding the ordered restitution.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Gaiovnik, d at 651; review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Morrell Grant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Morrell Grant Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-41 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Antonio Medina v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Antonio Medina v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“On appeal from the district court's denial of a [motion to correct a sentence], this court will not reevaluate a sentence if the district court's discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized by law.” (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, (A15-0984), (A15-0998) v. Chao Moua, (A15-0984), (A15-0998). 874 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-0984), (A15-0998) v. Chao Moua, (A15-0984), (A15-0998). 874 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-41 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Terence Leon Callender v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terence Leon Callender v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
9, a court may “at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” “On appeal from the district court's denial of a rule 27.03 motion, this court will not reevaluate a sentence if the [district] court's discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized by law.” (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review the denial of a rule 27.03 motion to determine whether “the district court’s discretion has been properly exercised and the 3 sentence is authorized by law.” (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“On appeal from the district court’s denial of a rule 27.03 motion, this court will not reevaluate a sentence if the [district] court’s discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized by law.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“On appeal from the district court’s denial of a rule 27.03 motion, this court will not reevaluate a sentence if the [district] court’s discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized by law.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“On appeal from the district court’s denial of a rule 27.03 motion, this court will not reevaluate a sentence if the [district] court’s discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized by law.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
review denied (Minn. Apr.