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. Stutelberg, 435 N.W.2d 632.

31 citing documents.

  • Juan Humberto Castillo-Alvarez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
  • Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
    In urging us to hold that the State has the burden of proof, Williams cites State v. Stutelberg , which he contends shows that the lower courts have been operating under the assumption that the State retains the burden of proof at all times.
  • A16-1527 Minn. 2018
    In urging us to hold that the State has the burden of proof, Williams cites State v. Stutelberg , , which he contends shows that the lower courts have been operating under the assumption that the State retains the burden of proof at all times.
  • State v. Provost 901 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State v. Provost 901 N.W.2d 199 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    Stutelberg, -34 (Minn. App. 1989).
  • Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    3); -35 (Minn. App. 4 1989); cf. Townsend, d at 739 (“We have not yet addressed whether the statutory time bar under section 590.01, subdivision 4(a)(2) or the procedural bar under Knaffla apply to a motion to correct a sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision
  • Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    d 692, 695 (Minn. 1997) (postconviction petition); -34 (Minn. App. 1989) (motion to correct sentence).
  • Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    3); -35 (Minn.App.1989).
  • Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Anderson v. State 794 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    9, a court may at any time “correct a sentence not authorized by law.” On appeal from the district court’s denial of a rule 27.03 motion, this court “will not reevaluate a sentence if the [district] court’s discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized by law.” -34 (Minn.App.1989) ().
  • Tucker v. State 777 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Tucker v. State 777 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    -37 (Minn.App.1989) (reversing and remanding to postconviction court to correct defendant’s improperly calculated sentence).
  • Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
  • Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
    9 ("The court at any time may correct a sentence not authorized by law."); (characterizing the appellant’s motion as a "motion for postconviction relief under Minn. R.Crim.
  • State v. Verdon 727 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Verdon 727 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Washington 725 N.W.2d 125 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    (permitting sentencing challenges under rule 27.03 despite previous, unsuccessful challenges).
  • Miller v. State 714 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Miller v. State 714 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Cook 617 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 617 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -34 (Minn.App.1989); see also United States v. Kadota, 757 F.2d 198, 199 (8th Cir.1985), cert.
  • State v. Scott 529 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Scott 529 N.W.2d 11 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    (rule 27.03, subdivision 9, motion to correct the sentence termed a "motion for postconviction relief").
  • State v. Combs 504 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Combs 504 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1993