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. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759.

190 citing documents.

  • State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Kachina v. State 744 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Kachina v. State 744 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
  • Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
    If the adjudicated conviction is later vacated for a reason not relevant to the remaining unadjudicated conviction(s), one of the remaining unadjudi-cated convictions can then be formally adjudicated and sentence imposed, with credit, of course, given for time already served on the vacated sentence.” ().
  • State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Vance 734 N.W.2d 650 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Palubicki 727 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Palubicki 727 N.W.2d 662 Minn. 2007
    See, (“[T]he word ‘restitution’ connotes restoring or compensating the victim for his loss.
  • State v. Verdon 727 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Verdon 727 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    A clerical error “cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.” , 768 n. 4 (Minn.1999).
  • State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kendell 723 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
  • Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
  • Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
    1, a defendant “may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.” “We have long recognized that the ‘conviction’ prohibited by this statute is not a guilty verdict, but is rather a formal adjudication of guilt.”
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
    See *724 (holding that the underlying guilty verdict of a lesser-included crime remains intact and the district court may later convict and sentence on that crime if a separate adjudicated conviction is later vacated).
  • Martinek v. State 678 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Martinek v. State 678 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (stating that district court’s record conviction and enter judgment in court file); (stating that because of imprecision of transcripts relating to sentencing and conviction orders, “we typically look to the official judgment of conviction, which generally appears as a separate entry in the file”).
  • State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Smith 656 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Smith 656 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (holding that court of appeals had authority to treat notice of appeal as petition for writ of prohibition).
  • State v. Staloch 643 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Distinguished State v. Staloch 643 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    Although cited to by neither party, and believe it is distinguishable from the present case.
  • State v. Hoelzel 639 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Hoelzel 639 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2002
  • Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • Correll v. Distinctive Dental Services, P.A. 636 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (“questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review”); Frosb-Benco Elec.
  • State v. Wilson 632 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Wilson 632 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
    1(1) (2000), a defendant convicted of a crime may not be convicted of “[a] lesser degree of the same crime.”
  • State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
    We have stated that the legislature is vested with the “power to prescribe punishment for criminal acts” and the judiciary’s role is to “impose sentences within the statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.”
  • State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (noting authority to impose a sentence or stay of sentence on a lesser-ineluded offense after the primary offense has been vacated).