Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Washington v. State, 845 N.W.2d 205.

83 citing documents.

Simon Christopher Mueller, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Travis Clay Andersen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Travis Clay Andersen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A24-1949 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Bruce Ray Fairbanks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kenyatta Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kenyatta Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
( n.1 (Minn. App. 2014)).
Robert Sam Raisch, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 8 N.W.3d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Robert Sam Raisch, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 8 N.W.3d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Justin Lee Ironhawk, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
4(a), and a procedural bar on bringing claims that the individual knew or should have known about at the time of an earlier appeal or postconviction petition, d 205, 210 (Minn. App. 2014) (citing Knaffla, d at 741; ).
Steven Todd Parker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Timothy Richard Gilles, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Washington v. State , d 205, 210 (Minn. App. 2014).
Lannon Lavar Burdunice, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-12 (Minn. App. 2014) (discussing supreme court cases addressing the issue).
Dane Michael Vandervoort, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Elliott Lamar-Seccer Pierson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[A]n offender may challenge his sentence either by filing a petition for postconviction relief under chapter 590 of the Minnesota Statutes or by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 27.03, subdivision 9.” d 205, 210 (Minn. App. 2014).
Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Roy Lee Smith, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Fong Lee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2d at 751 -52; see also Washington v. State , 216 (Minn. App. 2014).
Lorenzo Damien Brewer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Rule 27.03, subd ivision 9, does not apply to sentence challenges based on claimed factual inaccuracies before the district court at sentencing or when th e district court “ select[ed] 4 one among two or more sentences that are authorized by law.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joshua Lee Jones, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Andrew Wayne Clarke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
William Marcus Daniel Edwards, petitioner Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[R]ule 27.03, subdivision 9, authorizes relief only if a party challenges a sentence, as opposed to a conviction, and only if a party does so b y asserting that a sentence is ‘unauthorized by law’ .
Arteco Marvell Rhodes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because Rhodes could have raised the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in his first postconviction petition but did not, the Knaffla rule bars consideration of the claim in Rhodes’s second postconviction petition.1 Rhodes argues that the Knaffla rule does not apply here because he could have brought his first petition as a motion to correct sentence under Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Robert Lee Crum, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Lonnell Javey Powell, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jack Warren Nomeland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jack Warren Nomeland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
9, allows a court to “correct a sentence not authorized by law.” (noting that rule 27.03 allows court to sua sponte correct sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joseph Fellman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joseph Fellman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ignacio Olalde-Hernandez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ignacio Olalde-Hernandez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a motion to correct sentence is proper only when the sentence was illegal); (recognizing the district court’s authority to treat a motion to correct sentence as a postconviction petition).
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But we also have held that an offender’s challenge to a sentence is “properly filed” under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, only in limited circumstances: “only if the offender challenges the sentence on the ground that it is ‘unauthorized by law’ in the sense that the sentence is contrary to an applicable statute or other applicable law.”
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
And a motion is properly filed under the rule if the offender challenges a sentence on the grounds that “the sentence is 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)
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terence Leon Callender v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015