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 v. Houston 702 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 2005
  • Danforth v. State 700 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Danforth v. State 700 N.W.2d 530 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See O’ (conviction is final when "judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time *531 for a petition for certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied”).
  • 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. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 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
  • State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    A new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions applies retroactively to all cases “pending on direct review or not yet final.” O’ (quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 , 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See O’ (new rules of *101 federal constitutional procedure apply to matters pending on direct review when the rule is announced).
  • State v. Senske 692 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Senske 692 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See O’ (reducing consecutive terms to 25 years each under Apprendi, although the combined 50-year sentence would have violated the 25-year statutory maximum).
  • State v. Scacchetti 690 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Scacchetti 690 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    “[I]f a case is pending on direct review when a new rule of federal constitutional criminal procedure is announced, a criminal defendant is entitled to benefit from that new rule.” O’ accord Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 , 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Under Teague , a holding constitutes a new rule if “it breaks new ground, imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government, or was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” O’ (quotation & citation omitted).
  • State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    It is axiomatic that a case is final when a “judgment of conviction 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’ (quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 321 n. 6, 107 S.Ct.
  • State v. Fairbanks 688 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Fairbanks 688 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    “[I]f a case is pending on direct review when a new rule of federal constitutional criminal procedure is announced, the defendant is entitled to benefit from that new rule.” O’ (recognizing Apprendi as a new rule of law).
  • State v. Whitley 682 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Whitley 682 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    requires that each of these findings be made by a jury based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” O’