Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477.

86 citing documents.

Ryan Daniel Jones-Adams, Petitioner Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Joseph Milton Barnes, petitioner Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The state’s is misguided.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joseph Fellman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joseph Fellman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Howard Bartz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Howard Bartz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
does not err in construing a Rule 27.03, subdivision 9 motion as a petition for postconviction relief where the appellant’s challenge ‘implicates more than simply his sentence.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A] challenge to a sentence imposed as part of a plea agreement involves more than simply the sentence.”
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
It therefore follows that a defendant may use Rule 27.03 to challenge a restitution award that is contrary to law or applicable statutes, subject to the limitations set forth in Johnson, d at 176
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
modifying a sentence.” Wayne, d at 391 ().
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wilson Newongeby Kpahn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wilson Newongeby Kpahn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–81 (Minn. 2015); –92 (Minn. 2015) (applying Coles and deeming the claim outside the rule because a victory would have entitled the claimant to “a new trial, not a reduced sentence”).
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently stated that when a defendant challenges a sentence that was imposed as part of a plea agreement, a motion for relief under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, “impacts more than simply the sentence.”
Darwin Ray Battle-Bey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Darwin Ray Battle-Bey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[C]ourts in some circumstances have the authority to treat a request to correct a sentence purportedly brought under Rule 27.03 as a petition for postconviction relief.”
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
Indeed, “the plain language of Rule 27.03 is limited to sentences, and the court’s authority under the rule is restricted to modifying a sentence.”
Christopher Eugene Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Christopher Eugene Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We also note that the supreme court recently stated that “where the sentence at issue is imposed as part of a plea agreement, a motion to change that sentence impacts more than simply the sentence, and Rule 27.03 does not apply.”
Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2015