Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Staloch, 643 N.W.2d 329.
- State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-30 (Minn. App. 2002) (noting “the difference between” an oral sentence and a written sentencing order where the oral sentence indicated that 75 days of jail time were “suspended” and the written sentencing order indicated that the 75 days were “stayed” and holding that “[w]hen an orally pronounced sentence va
- State of Minnesota v. Toni Ann Olmstead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Toni Ann Olmstead
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota law establishes, however, that “an orally pronounced sentence controls over a judgment and commitment order when the two conflict.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Jeffrey Charles Morris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Jack Perry Frazier Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Jack Perry Frazier
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 (providing that the district court must state the precise terms of the sentence); (stating that the “orally pronounced sentence controls over a judgment and commitment order when the two conflict”).
- Jeffrey Charles Morris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Pageau v. State 820 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
Pageau v. State
820 N.W.2d 271
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
the judgment and commitment order is evi *278 dence which may be used to determine the intended sentence,” Staloch involved “a serious and direct conflict between the oral sentence and the written sentence.” , 330 n. 1, 331 (Minn.App.