Cited by

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

83 citing documents.

Terence Leon Callender v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The phrase “unauthorized by law” means “contrary to law or applicable statutes” or “contrary to statutory requirements.”
Aka Lawrence Fualefeh v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Aka Lawrence Fualefeh v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “because [petitioner] failed to raise the Knaffla exceptions in his petition, the postconviction court did not err when it failed to apply either exception”); d 205, 216 (Minn. App. 2014) (stating that “[petitioner] seeks to invoke an exception to the Knaffla rule, but he may not do so for the first time on appeal because he did not assert the exception in his motion papers in the district court”).
Steven Todd Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Todd Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “an offender may not avoid the requirements of the postconviction act by simply labeling a challenge as a motion to correct sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9.”
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rodney Thundercloud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rodney Thundercloud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But a person “may not avoid the requirements of the postconviction act by simply labeling a challenge as a motion to correct [his] sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9.”
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(explaining that “the supreme court has not prevented parties from invoking the rule by motion”).
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Keith Allen Halland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellant “may not avoid the requirements of the postconviction act by simply labeling a challenge as a motion to correct [his] sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9.” (holding that where a petitioner has not argued that a petition for postconviction relief would be inadequate or ineffective, the exclusive remedy for a review of the claims is a proceeding for postconviction relief and not in a pr
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
While the text of rule 27.03, subdivision 9, empowers the district court to correct a sentence on its own, the rule does not “expressly authorize a party to file a motion to correct a sentence.”
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Recently, we held that “an offender may file a motion to correct sentence pursuant to [subdivision 9] 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.”
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A person “may not avoid the requirements of the postconviction act by simply labeling a challenge as a motion to correct [his] sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9.”
Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
9; (stating that, although the text of rule 27.03, subdivision 9, authorizes district courts to correct sentences sua sponte, courts have not prevented parties from invoking the rule by motion).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by