Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota, 888 N.W.2d 125.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-96 (Minn. 2015); see, d 257, 263 (Minn. App. 2016) (reversing imposition of conditional-release term because defendant did not admit, and a jury did not find, that the defendant w as a risk-level III offender at the time of the offense), aff’d
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure is a question we review de novo.”
- State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
-
State v. Meger
901 N.W.2d 418
Minn. 2017
aff'd, which was pending before us at the time, the court of appeals held that the district court did not err in construing Meger’s motion as a motion to correct his sentence under Minn. R. Crim.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
-
State v. Kirby
899 N.W.2d 485
Minn. 2017
See Minn. Stat. § 609.095 (a) (2016)
-
Eldon Paul Koestler, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
9 motion vi olates the separation of powers.” Reynolds v. State
- Lonnell Javey Powell, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-
Williams v. State
899 N.W.2d 504
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
9, permits a court to correct a “sentence not authorized by law.” A sentence is unauthorized by law if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[F]or a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.” (quotation omitted).