Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Johnson v. State, 801 N.W.2d 173.

62 citing documents.

Timothy Richard Gilles, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In Coles, the supreme court reviewed the issue de novo, reasoning that “[t]he parties’ arguments present[ed] issues regarding the interpretation of a procedural rule and statute.” d at 479; (Johnson I).
Toby Earl Johnson, Minn. 2023
The court concluded that “[a]lthough a Sentencing Worksheet is required to be filed for felony offenses and it was not for Count 1 of this Indictment, failing to do so for the charge of first-degree murder does not cause 4 Johnson, d at 916–18 (rejecting a claim that Johnson’s sentence was illegal for violating separation of powers principles); –77 (Minn. 2011) (affirming a denial of a motion to correct sentence that challenged the validity of Johnson’s guilty plea); Johnson v. State , –80 (Minn
Emem Ufot Udoh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Roy Lee Smith, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Fong Lee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g. , Townsend v. State
Robert Lee Crum, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g., Townsend v. State , 739 (Minn. 2013)
A18-1615 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The supreme court addressed a
Rossberg v. State 932 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 2019
Rossberg v. State 932 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 2019
Wayne , d at 391 (quoting Johnson v. State , , 176 (Minn. 2011) ).
Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The interpretation of a procedural rule is subject to de novo review.”
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2016
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2016
Toby Earl Johnson v. State of Minnesota 877 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2016
Toby Earl Johnson v. State of Minnesota 877 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2016
Johnson v. State (Johnson II)
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darwin Ray Battle-Bey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Darwin Ray Battle-Bey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
It is not proper to use rule 27.03, subdivision 9, to challenge a conviction, d 173, 176 (Minn. 2011), and this issue could have been raised on direct appeal, in a prior postconviction petition, and within two years of August 1, 2005.
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 2015
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 2015
Steven Todd Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Todd Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 212-13; (concluding that offender’s claim was not proper under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, and reviewing as petition for postconviction relief).
Mark Edward Wetsch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Edward Wetsch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The interpretation of a procedural rule is subject to de novo review.”
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that a challenge to a conviction may not be brought under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, which is limited to sentencing issues).
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
Rodney Thundercloud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rodney Thundercloud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The interpretation of a procedural rule is subject to de novo review.”
Jerry Wayne Gerrard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Wayne Gerrard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(procedural rules); (sentencing statutes).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The interpretation of a procedural rule is subject to de novo review.”
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellant “may not avoid the requirements of the postconviction act by simply labeling a challenge as a motion to correct [his] sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9.” (holding that where a petitioner has not argued that a petition for postconviction relief would be inadequate or ineffective, the exclusive remedy for a review of the claims is a proceeding for postconviction relief and not in a proceeding to correct a sentence under Minn. R. Crim.
Larry Roosevelt Noble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Larry Roosevelt Noble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The interpretation of a procedural rule is subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014