Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759.

190 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Rene Mercedes Rivas-Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We reverse to vacate appellant’s convictions for counts II through IV 2 A clerical error is an error that “cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.” State v. Pflepsen , n.4 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Erick Carl Longo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-68 (Minn. 1999); d 85, 88 (Minn. 1982) (prohibiting district court from imposing “a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imp osed”); State v. Prudhomme , (holding that after a sentence has been set aside, a district cour
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
State v. Hallmark 927 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 2019
See State v. Pflepsen , , 766 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota v. Victor Wayne Lynch Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Because the testimony and statements recorded in hearing and trial transcripts are often imprecise and unclear with respect to sentencing and conviction orders, we typically look to the official judgment of conviction, which generally appears as a separate entry in the file, as conclusive evid ence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” -81 (Minn. 2015).
Jeremy John Queen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Pflepsen , (“Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.”).
State v. Franson 921 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Franson 921 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Pflepsen , , 763 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When a jury finds a defendant guilty of more than one offense from a single course of conduct, the district court should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
See State v. Pflepsen , , 764 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Troy Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Questions conc erning the authority and j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e l o w e r c o u r t s a r e l e g a l i s s u e s s u b j e c t t o d e novo review.”
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Patzold 917 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Pflepsen , , 766 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota v. Roland Eugene Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(directing cour ts issuing conviction orders to be “very clear” about the offense of which the defendant is formally adjudicated guilty).
State of Minnesota v. Sergio Alejandro Zapata Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[W]e typically look to the official judgment of conviction .
State of Minnesota v. Mohammad Bilal Chughtai Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-66 (Minn. 1999) (vacating convictions of included offenses).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. C. S., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Pflepsen , (noting that a district court has no authority to modify a sentence or the conditions of probation once probation has expired) ; d 64, 67 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that a district court lacked statutory authority to order restitution after a period of p
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Hall 915 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Pflepsen , , 766 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Harry Rudolph Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Pflepsen , (directing courts issuing conviction orders to be “very clear” about the offense of which the defendant is formally adjudicated guilty).
In re the Matter of: Colleen Jea’ne Olson v. Jeremy Michael Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See *467 Spann v. State , , 573 (Minn. 2007) (noting that a written judgment of conviction provides "conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated" (quoting State v. Pflepsen , , 766 (Minn. 1999) ) ).
State of Minnesota v. Shane Anthony Spicer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Pflepsen , (“[W]e typically look to the official judgment of conviction .
State of Minnesota v. Kha Xiong Jakel Minn. Ct. App. 2018
the supreme court emphasized the importance of adhering to section 611A.04, subdivision 1(a), noting that the district court’s decision not to impose restitution in view of a pending civil lawsuit was “inconsistent with the law and policy governing restitution.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Steven Roger Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.” .
Jason Edward Banks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
I. Jurisdiction “Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Tiara Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.”).
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Ali Elmi Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(directing courts issuing conviction orders to be “very clear” about the offense of which the defendant is formally adjudicated guilty).
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Distinguished State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Clint Scott Bearce Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Brandyn Earley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Bang Tang Wuol Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Solomon Washington McIntyde Minn. Ct. App. 2017
7, in conviction orders); (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Gene Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John William Zastrow Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“‘[W]hen the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act * * * the court [is] to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bret Emery Vansickel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Ann Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[Appellate courts] have long recognized that the ‘conviction’ prohibited by this statute is not a guilty verdict, but is rather a formal adjudication of guilt.”