Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Townsend v. State, 834 N.W.2d 736.

70 citing documents.

John Kevin Melina, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(reaching the merits of a postconviction petition without deciding timeliness).
Simon Christopher Mueller, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DeMarcus LeMaine Barker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Specifically, [appellate courts] review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.” d 736, 738 (Minn. 2013).
Juan Humberto Castillo-Alvarez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Bruce Ray Fairbanks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 736, 738 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.2 (Minn. 2013) ( stating that appellate courts “apply the law in effect on the date of [the] offense”).
Paul Casey Mason, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Justin Lee Ironhawk, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Specifically, [appellate courts] review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.” (citation omitted).
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Townsend asked the court to “(1) amend his consecutive life and 72-month sentences to run concurrently[ ] and (2) apply 597 days of jail credit to his life sentence rather than his 72-month sentence.” (Townsend VI).
Steven Todd Parker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Specifically, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.” (citation omitted).
A23-0163 Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-0163 Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Emem Ufot Udoh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Danny Hamilton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Courtney Ann Houck, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.3 (Minn. 2013); Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Specifically, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.” Townsend v. State , (citation omitted).
Robert Earl Leatherberry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Marlow Shelton McDonald, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Specifically, [an appellate court] review[s] the district court’s legal conclusions de no vo and its factual findi ngs under the clearly 6 erroneous standard.” Townsend v. State , (citation omitted).
Eugene Francis Cuypers, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Victor Demetrius Cole, petitioner, Appellant, 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
Gary Lee Burnett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(articulating the same standard of review for the denial of a motion to correct a sentence).
Melvin L. Allen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Specifically, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.”
Joshua Lee Jones, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
9; d 736, 738-39 (Minn. 2013).
Jose Armando Padilla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ryan David Avalon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Specifically, 3 we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences,” State v. Spain , and review “the district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence for an abuse o f discretion,”
Jonathon Duane Taylor Hanson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Thus, “[t]o avoid double credit when applying jail credit to consecutive sentences, the court must apply the jail credit to the firs t sentence only.” n.3 (Minn. 2013) (citing Minn. Sent.
State v. Overweg 914 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Overweg 914 N.W.2d 410 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Townsend v. State , , 738 (Minn. 2013).
Manuel Enrique Muro Martinez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And, 1 This court applies the sentencing guidelines and related case law in effect at the time of the offense “to determine the correctness of a sentence.” d 736, 739 (Minn. 2013).
Lonnell Javey Powell, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kenneth Redding Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kenneth Redding Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerome Deon Nunn v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 2015
Jerome Deon Nunn v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 2015
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2015
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2015
Townsend v. State (Townsend VI)
Christopher Eugene Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christopher Eugene Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Specifically, [appellate courts] review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.” (citation omitted), cert.