DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

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, Respondent, 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, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (applying Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 -04, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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)