Cited by

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

190 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Candyce L. Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Candyce L. Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
322, 323 (1930) (holding that clerical error is one “which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion”); n.4 (Minn. 1999) (citing Wilson and holding that “district court’s decision not to order restitution” could not be corrected as clerical error because it reflected district court’s discretionary decision).
State of Minnesota v. Tyrese Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tyrese Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
8 “[T]he ‘conviction’ prohibited by this statute is not a guilty verdict, but is rather a formal adjudication of guilt.” see also Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan James Sabot Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 (2012) (providing that in order to qualify as a “[c]onviction,” a “verdict of guilty by a jury” must be “accepted and recorded by the court”); (explaining proper procedure when an adjudicated conviction is vacated).
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
the [district] court [is] to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 759, 763 (Minn. 1999) (“Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth E. Andersen 871 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth E. Andersen 871 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2015
In re Craig E. Cascarano, State of Minnesota v. Michael Demond Rashaun Mason 871 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re Craig E. Cascarano, State of Minnesota v. Michael Demond Rashaun Mason 871 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4(3)(b) (setting time for taking misdemeanor appeal as 30 days after final judgment or entry of order appealed); (recognizing court of appeals’ authority to waive or suspend technical requirements and treat notice of appeal as petition for writ of prohibition).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Nodes 863 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Nodes 863 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 2015
As to the requirement that a plea be “recorded” before it is a conviction, Nodes argues, that a plea is not recorded until the district court has prepared and filed a written judgment.
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(recognizing that “testimony and statements recorded in hearing and trial transcripts are often imprecise and unclear with respect to sentencing and conviction orders”).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ed Cadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We therefore reverse the disorderly conduct conviction and remand for the district court to vacate that conviction but retain the jury’s (requiring remand for district court to vacate judgment of conviction but retain finding of guilt on lesser included offense upon a district court’s erroneous entry of judgments of conviction for both an offense and a lesser included offense).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Thomas Leonsaco Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2010); -66 (Minn. 1999)
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that the court of appeals has authority to suspend technical requirements of the rules).
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby 848 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2014
(“Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.”).
State v. Nodes 849 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Nodes 849 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“The general practice, and a practice to which district courts should adhere, is to have the conviction recorded and appear in a judgment entered in the file.”).
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
Poppler v. Wright Hennepin Cooperative Electric Ass'n 845 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2014
See Kastner v. Star Trails Ass’n
State v. Riggs 845 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Riggs 845 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“ ‘[Cjourts have no inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentence for criminal acts.’ Rather, the power to prescribe punishment for criminal acts is vested with the legislature and the judiciary may only impose sentences within the statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.” (alteration in original) .().
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
State v. Boldman 813 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 2012
(describing process for remand and formal conviction and sentencing on the lesser-included charge).
State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
State v. Nelson 796 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2011
(stating “Restitution is intended to be compensatory, not punitive.”).
State v. Ramsay 789 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ramsay 789 N.W.2d 513 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, (“Restitution is intended to be compensatory, not punitive.”); State v. Maidi (stating primary purpose of restitution is to compensate victim); (“ ‘restitution’ connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his loss”).
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. BARRIENTOS-QUINTANA 787 N.W.2d 603 Minn. 2010
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
LaTourelle, d at 284 ; Bowser, d at 779 .
In Re the Welfare of H.A.D. 764 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
In Re the Welfare of H.A.D. 764 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
“a district court lacks authority to modify the conditions of probation once probation has expired.” There is no dispute that the June 11, 2007 order was issued more than one year after the court placed H.A.D.