Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hagen, 690 N.W.2d 155.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Chester Hageman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Chester Hageman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A defendant “has a Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of the existence beyond a reasonable doubt of any fact, except the fact of a prior conviction, that increases the sentence above this maximum.” (citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000)).
State of Minnesota v. Carl Joseph Matusovic Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000)
Tevin Marcel Bellaphant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
On appeal from a denial of postconviction relief, appellate courts “review issues of law de novo.” (“[A] Blakely argument presents a constitutional issue, which this court reviews de novo.”).
State of Minnesota v. Lanell Thaddeus Crenshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(applying Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 -04, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Dionna Susan Koller Minn. Ct. App. 2017
D E C I S I O N “Other than the fact of a prior conviction , any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63 (2000)
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
In so holding, the court of appeals relied largely on an earlier court of appeals case
In Re the Welfare of J.C.P. 716 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of J.C.P. 716 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Hobbs 713 N.W.2d 884 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Ward 118 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Brown 115 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Dettman 696 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Dettman 696 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Recently, -60 (Minn.App.2004), we addressed the “admission exception” to the general rule in Blakely .
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-59 (Minn.App.2004); (defendant’s waiver of jury-trial rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary).
State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Barker 692 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Barker 692 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Senske 692 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Senske 692 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
20, 2005) (stayed pending decision in Shattuck)