Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Amundson, 828 N.W.2d 747.

50 citing documents.

Mathew Paul Crow v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. Arola Johnson, 7
Simon Christopher Mueller, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Michael James Rye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael James Rye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Steven Todd Parker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2 61 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted) (holding that a motion was proper under rule 27.03 7 when it challenged a sentence on constitutional grounds), aff’d, (holding the same for a motion challenging a sentence based on an incorrect criminal- history score); (holding the same for a motion challenging an upward departure based solely on a plea agreement).
Toby Earl Johnson, Minn. 2023
–41 (Minn. 2004) (reducing a sentence where the district court mistakenly imposed a sentence higher than the presumptive sentence); –54 (Minn. App. 2013) (correcting a sentence where the district court imposed consecutive sentences instead of the presumptive concurrent sentences without offering justification).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Specifically, a sentence is unauthorized “when it does not meet the requirements of the applicable sentencing statute.”
Elliott Lamar-Seccer Pierson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 212; see State v. Amundson , -52 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating motion to correct sentence is not subject to same limitations as postconviction petitions).
Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
9] to correct a sentence, unless the district court abused its 3 discretion or the original sentence was unauthorized by law.” State v. Amundson
Fong Lee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Lorenzo Damien Brewer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Further, we will not reverse the postconviction court’s denial of a rule 27.03, subdivision 9, motion unless it “abused its discretion or the original sentence was unauthorized by law.” State v. Amundson
Robert Lee Crum, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-52 (Minn. App. 2013); cf. Townsend, d at 739 ( “We have not yet addressed whether .
A18-1655 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Amy Jeanne Flaherty, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Andrew Wayne Clarke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-34 (Minn. 2016) (holding that the two-year time limit does not apply); -52 (Minn. App. 2013) (holding that a motion to correct a sentence is not barred by the statutory prohibition on second or successive postconviction petitions).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Amundson , , 752 (Minn. App. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Provost 901 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Provost 901 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“This court will not reverse the district court’s denial of a motion brought under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, to correct a sentence, unless the district court abused its discretion or the original sentence was unauthorized by law.”
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
such an offense always carries with it the possibility of violence and therefore some special risks to human life”); -53 (Minn. App. 2013) (holding that in determining whether a crime is a “crime against a person” for purposes of permissive consecutive sentencing, the court looks to whether the conduct “poses a special danger to human life”).
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 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
-52 (Minn. App. 2013) (citing Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
contrary to an applicable statute or other applicable law.” see also Vazquez, d at 318 (holding 5 that a challenge to a sentence based on the district court’s incorrect calculation of the offender’s criminal-history score was properly raised under rule 27.03); (holding the same for a challenge based on an unauthorized upward departure at sentencing).
Morris Gaye Kayee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Morris Gaye Kayee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We will not reverse the denial of a rule 27.03 motion “unless the district court abused its discretion or 2 the original sentence was unauthorized by law.”
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
nlawfully stays a sentence in the face of a statute that mandates an executed sentence, or when the district court unlawfully sentences the defendant based on an incorrect criminal history score, d 141, 147 (Minn. 2007), or when the defendant’s sentence constituted an unlawful upward departure, –53 (Minn. App. 2013).
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Ray Whipple v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
to argue that his challenge to his sentence is properly asserted under Minn. R. Crim.
Michael Ray Whipple v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
9, provides that a district court “may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” We will not reverse a district court’s denial of 2 such a motion “unless the district court abused its discretion or the original sentence was unauthorized by law.”
Keith Allen Halland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Keith Allen Halland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Larry Roosevelt Noble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Larry Roosevelt Noble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Id.; –53 (Minn. App. 2013) (holding the same for a claim based solely on district court’s unauthorized upward departure at sentencing).
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ge Her 843 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ge Her 843 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellant argues that the district court erred in summarily denying his motion as if it were a petition for postconviction relief because, in two recent decisions, this court determined that the two-year limitations period for filing a postconviction petition does not apply to a motion brought under rule 27.03.