DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite O'MEARA v. State, 679 N.W.2d 334.

75 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    See Campos v. State , (recognizing finality of conviction as threshold issue for retroactivity analysis); O’Meara v. State , (noting a case is final when “the availability of appea l [has been] exhausted, the time for a petition for certiorari has elapsed or a petition for certiorari [with the Supreme Court ] has been filed and finally denied” (quotation omitted) ), overruled on other grounds by Danforth v. Minnesota
  • A20-0206 A20-0228 A20-0229 Minn. 2021
    See O’Meara v. State , overruled by Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008).
  • Daryll Christian Strom, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    at 496 (quoting O’Meara v. State , ).
  • Luna-Pliego v. State 904 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Luna-Pliego v. State 904 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    deemed to have become final when it “‘has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari [has] elapsed or a petition for certiorari [has been filed and] finally denied.’ ” O’ (alterations in.original), (quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 321 n.6, 107 S.Ct.
  • Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See O’ overruled on other grounds by Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 , 128 S.Ct.
  • A16-1713 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    See O’d 334, 338 (Minn. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Danforth v. Minnesota , 552 U.S. 264, 128 S. Ct. 1029 (2008).
  • Wilson Newongeby Kpahn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Wilson Newongeby Kpahn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    A case becomes final when “the availability of direct appeal has been exhausted, the time for a petition for certiorari has elapsed or a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has been filed and finally denied.” O’ overruled on other grounds by Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 128 S. Ct. 1029 (2008).
  • Jason Charles Cibulka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Jason Charles Cibulka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Shawn Michael O'Connell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Shawn Michael O'Connell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    A case is final when “the availability of appeal has been exhausted, the time for a petition for certiorari has elapsed or a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court has been filed and finally denied.” O’ overruled on other grounds by Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 128 S. Ct. 1029 (2008).
  • Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
  • Campos v. State 816 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 2012
  • Campos v. State 816 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 2012
    See O’ (discussing finality), overruled on other grounds by Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 , 128 S.Ct.
  • Campos v. State 798 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Campos v. State 798 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    (citing O’), for the proposition that the determination of whether a decision applies retroactively or non-retroactively is a legal question that is reviewed de novo.
  • Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    E.g., O’-39 (Minn.2004) (distinguishing between state supreme court’s role in determining retroactivity of decisions on state law and United States Supreme Court’s role in determining retroactivity of new rules of federal criminal procedure).
  • State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008
    708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987); O’
  • State v. Hughes 742 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Hughes 742 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “[A] case is pending until such time as the availability of direct *463 appeal has been exhausted, the time for a petition for certiorari has elapsed or a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has been filed and finally denied.” O’
  • Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
  • Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
  • Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
  • Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
    O’ (applying the federal retroactivity framework established by Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 , 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
  • Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
  • Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
    ” O’ (alterations in original) (quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 321 n. 6, 107 S.Ct.
  • Danforth v. State 718 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2006
  • Danforth v. State 718 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2006
  • Stiles v. State 716 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2006
  • Stiles v. State 716 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2006
    O’ (citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-11 , 109 S.Ct.
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
  • McKenzie v. State 713 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2006
  • McKenzie v. State 713 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2006
  • Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
  • Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
    We have interpreted this provision of the guidelines to mean that ”[c]onsecutive sentences are permissive for multiple current felony convictions of crimes against separate individuals.”
  • State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    d at 747-48 ; see also O’ (reducing consecutive terms to 25 years each under Apprendi , although the combined 50-year sentence would have violated the 25-year statutory maximum).
  • Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Houston 702 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2005