Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota, 880 N.W.2d 357.

66 citing documents.

John Kevin Melina, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 “Appellate courts ‘review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, for an abuse of discretion.’” d 626, 631 (Minn. App. 2025) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
4 We note, as the state does, that nothing in this opinion prevents Madison from making a motion under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03 and challenging the restitution order as “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”
Ryan Timothy Kellen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
But he asserts that he may raise this challenge for the first time on appeal because , as recognized in Evans v. State, a court “may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” -60 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Shain Alan Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Shain Alan Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[A] restitution award is part of a sentence.”
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
Because restitution is part of a sentence, a defendant may challenge a restitution order through a motion to correct sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, if the defendant is “challeng[ing] the court’s legal authority to award restitution” and “the motion does not impact the underlying conviction.” -60 (Minn. 2016).
A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
8 Appellate courts “review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, for an abuse of discretion.”
Bruce Ray Fairbanks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Paul Casey Mason, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence under [rule 27.03] for an abuse of discretion.” , 359 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. 2024
5(1) (including “the offender” as a collateral source); (stating that, once the Board has awarded reparations to a victim, “it steps into the shoes of the victim”).
A23-1288 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.”
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jonathan Nicholas Turner, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Almanzo Ousley Cotton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[T]he term ‘reparations,’ as used in Minn. Stat. § 611A.53, is not synonymous with the term ‘restitution.’”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
After the 30- day time period has passed, a defendant “may not challenge restitution,” id., unless the challenge relates to “the district court’s legal authority to award restitution,”
Toby Earl Johnson, Minn. 2023
A22-1051 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Evans v. State , -60 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
Aretina Tiaira Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Danny Hamilton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
9, for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Carlos Orlandos Smith, Minn. 2022
Kurt Lee Villa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Brent Lanier Lynch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kevin Terrance Hannon, Minn. 2021
Fong Lee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
David Laurence Hodges, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
9, for an abuse of discretion.” Evans v. State
Elijah Ahmad Milsap, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Evans v. State , d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Amy Jeanne Flaherty, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Andrew Wayne Clarke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joshua Lee Jones, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5a.” The conditional-release terms were “a material part of the negotiation.” -60 (Minn. 2016) .
William Marcus Daniel Edwards, petitioner Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.”
Evans v. State 925 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2019
Evans v. State 925 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2019
See Evans v. State ( Evans IV )
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
State v. Overweg 922 N.W.2d 179 Minn. 2019
" Evans v. State , , 359 (Minn. 2016).
Louis Ambrose, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by