Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Benniefield, 678 N.W.2d 42.

63 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, (“A district court is not obligated to depart downward from the guidelines, even if a mitigating factor is present.”) aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A district court is not obligated to depart downward from the guidelines, even if a mitigating factor is present.” aff’d
In the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(recognizing that criminalizing drug possession in school zones serves to protect children from “abandoned drugs or discarded drug paraphernalia”).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
For instance, the supreme court held that the crime of possession of a controlled substance in a school zone does not require the state to prove that the defendant knew they were in a school zone.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
where the supreme court held that a person could commit the crime of possessing a co ntrolled substance in a school zone without knowing they were in a school zone or intending to commit the possession crime in a school zone.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” , 48 (Minn. 2004) (citing C.R.M., d at 809-10).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
–35 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding that district court’s erroneous suggestion that it could not appoint substitute counsel was harmless because defendant did not present any exceptional circumstances), aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Roby v. State , 3 But appellate courts can “deviate from this rule when the interests of justice require consideration of such issues and doing so would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal.” Id.; (considering equal-protection claim “in the interests of justice”); Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Nor may it impose the same sentence on remand by “mov[ing] to the high end of the presumptive range to 4 negate [an] appellant’s successful appeal on calculating his criminal history score.” aff’d, (Mi nn.
In Re the Custody of: N.S.V., L.J.V., E.T.V., Terri Ann Bischoff, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cf. State v. Benniefield , , 49 (Minn. 2004) (concluding that the crime of possession of a controlled substance in a school zone did not require the state to prove the defendant knew he was in a school zone).
A17-1841 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(concluding that the crime of possession of a controlled substance in a sc hool zone did not require the sta te to prove the defendant knew he was in a school zone).
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
LaPenotiere v. State 916 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2018
47 (Minn. 2004) (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-34 (Minn. App. 2003), aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Back v. State 902 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2017
Back v. State 902 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 2017
“We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo.” In this case, the applicable standard arises' out of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which says that “[n]o State shall ..."
James Donald Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that we may consider issues not presented to the district court in the interests of justice).
James Edward Boutto v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James Edward Boutto v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Unless a fundamental right or suspect class is involved, statutes are presumed to be constitutional.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Thomas Wenthe 865 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 2015
we concluded that the crime of possession of a controlled substance in a school zone does not require the State to prove the defendant knew he was in a school zone.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
He claims that this sentence contradicts the principles underlying the sentencing guidelines and this court’s aff’d on other grounds
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
2296, 2308 , 76 L.Ed.2d 497 (1983)
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 844 N.W.2d 519 Minn. 2014
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Garcia-Gutierrez 830 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Ndikum, d at 822 (requiring knowing possession for a conviction of possession of a pistol in public); (requiring knowing possession of drugs to be guilty of possessing drugs on school grounds); C.R.M., d at 810 (requiring knowing possession to be guilty of possessing a dangerous weapon at school); (requiring knowing possession for the charge of
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
-48 (Minn.2004); Russell, d at 889-91 .
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
(“There is a genuine risk that those involved in illegal drug use ...
State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
State v. Al-Naseer 734 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2007
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(stating that cocaine is a schedule II narcotic drug); -19 (Minn.1979) (holding *68 that statutorily listing cocaine in schedule II and classifying it as a narcotic drug is rational and does not violate equal protection).
State v. Melde 725 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 2006