Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Williams v. State, 910 N.W.2d 736.

72 citing documents.

Gary Lee Burnett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
743 (Minn. 2018) (holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof under the rule).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The State bears the burden of proof at sentencing to show that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score.”
A19-0270 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The State bears the 7 burden of proof at sentencing to show that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal history score.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jason Maurice Fagin, Minn. 2019
3, states that, “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, the burden of proof of the facts alleged in the petition shall be upon the petitioner to establish the facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” (“[ T]he postconviction statute makes clear that the defendant, the party bringing the petition, generally bears the burden of proof [at an evidentiary hearing].”); 10 (“A petitioner bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidenc
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The State bears the burden of proof at sentencing to show that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score.” d 736, 740 (Minn. 2018).
Ren Xu, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The state must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the prior conviction was valid, the defendant was the person involv ed, and the crime would constitute a felony in Minnesota.” Id.; see also Williams v. State , (indicating that at sentencing the state bears the burden of proving that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The State bears the burden of proof at sentencing to show that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score.” d 736, 740 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The State bears the burden of proof at sentencing to show that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score.” Heiderscheid objects to his sentence and argues that the district court erred in calculating his criminal-history score.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
At sentencing, the state bears the burden of proving “that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score.” Williams v. State , d 736, 740 (Minn. 2018).
State v. Watson 925 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Watson 925 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Williams v. State , , 743 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stewart 923 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Williams v. State , , 740 (Minn. 2018) ("The State bears the burden of proof at sentencing to show that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score.").
State v. Curtis 921 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2018
State v. Curtis 921 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2018
See Williams v. State , , 740 (2018) (noting that questions of law, including the interpretation of rules of procedure and "[d]etermining which party has the burden of proof," are reviewed de novo); State v. Obeta , , 288 (Minn. 2011) ("The question of whether to overrule precedent is a legal one that is subject to de novo rev
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Williams v. State , , 740 (Minn. 2018) (stating, in context of out-of-state offense classification, "[t]he State bears the burden of proof at sentencing to show that a prior conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
to correct a sentence after the time for direct appeal has passed,” he “bears the burden of proving that the sentence was not authorized by law.”