Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scovel, 916 N.W.2d 550.

77 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
N.H., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, -58 & n.11 (Minn. 2018) (“There is undoubtedly some danger in relying on subsequent legislative history.
A20-0116 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The “whole-statute canon” is a “pre- ambiguity canon.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But see State v. Scovel , (noting that interpretation of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Scovel , n.5 (Minn. 2018) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
n.5 (Minn. 2018) (“A defendant cannot forfeit appellate review of his [or her] criminal history score.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nyla Tomeka Murrell-French, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Scovel , (“[W]e strive for an interpretation that is consistent with the comments to the [g]uidelines, but the comments are merely advisory, not binding.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2 Braunig also cites State v. Scovel , which held that, when calculating a defendant’s criminal-history score under the sentencing guidelines, courts must apply the “Minnesota offense definitions and sentencing policies in effect when the defendant committed the current crime.” (citing Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
‘[a]n offense may be counted as a felony only if it would both be defined as a felony in Minnesota, and the offender received a sentence that in Minnesota would be a felony -level sentence.’” State v. Scovel , 559 (Minn. 2018) (citing Minn. Sent.
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
State v. Strobel 932 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2019
552 (Minn. 2018) ; see also Act of May 22, 2016, ch. 160, § 7, 2016 Minn. Laws 576 , 583-85 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 152.025 (2016) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minnesota offense definitions and sentencing policies in effect when the defendant commi tted the current crime.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A defendant may equally pursue sentence correction through a motion for sentence correction, as in Maurstad, d at 144, and Maley, d at 711, or on direct appeal, as in Outlaw, d at 355, & n.5 (Minn. 2018) (noting that “[a] defendant cannot forfeit appellate review of his criminal history score” and addressing challenge to calculation raised for the first time on appeal).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Riggs , d at 683 n.4 ; see also State v. Scovel , , 556-57 (Minn. 2018) ; Lietz v. Northern States Power Co. , , 870 (Minn. 2006) ; Harris v. County of Hennepin , , 732 (Minn. 2004).
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Scovel , , 553 & n.5 (Minn. 2018).