Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Barrientos, 837 N.W.2d 294.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We also “read and construe the statute as a whole, and we must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections, so as to give effect to all of the provisions.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason Turner Johnson, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason Turner Johnson, Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
that a waiver is valid, the district court “should comprehensively examine the defendant regarding the defendant’s comprehension of the charges, the possible punishments, mitigating circumstances, and any other facts relevant to the defendant’s understanding of the consequences of the waiver.” (quotation omitted); (reversing probation revocation when “the record offer[ed] no indication that [the probationer] knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
If the statute’s language is free and clear of all ambiguity, “we apply the plain meaning of the statutory language without engaging in any further construction.”
A21-1697 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When interpreting a statute, we “must read and construe the statute as a whole, and we must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections, so as to give effect to all of the provisions.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When interpreting a statute, we “must read and construe the statute as a whole, and we must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections, so as to give effect to all of the provisions.” State v. Barrientos
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. Stat. § 654.16 (2020)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Christensen 901 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A16-1372 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[W]hen two provisions of law are in irreconcilable conflict with one another, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision.” ( quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Sagataw 892 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Sagataw 892 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing Minn. Stat. § 645.16 ); -21 (Minn. 2000) (using plain language interpretation when comparing statute and a rule of criminal procedure).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
’ or (2) ‘order execution of the sentence previously imposed.’” –99 (Minn. 2013) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clinton Robert Zenzius Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 294, 298 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
BVA Equities, LLC, Relator v. City of New Hope Minn. Ct. App. 2014
BVA Equities, LLC, Relator v. City of New Hope Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. 846 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co. 846 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Riggs 845 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Riggs 845 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014