Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schwartz, 628 N.W.2d 134.

72 citing documents.

Matt Monoleetio Vogel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The state cites caselaw for the proposition that Minnesota’s conditional-release scheme does not violate the constitutional separation-of-powers principle because “the commissioner’s statutory authority over supervised and conditional release operates within and does not impede the court’s sentencing authority.” -41 (Minn. 2001).
Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
14 designated sex offenders.” (–74 (Minn. 2000); ); see also State ex rel.
Ronald Lindsey Reed v. Minnesota Department of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Ronald Lindsey Reed v. Minnesota Department of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Even if we accept Reed’s premise, a change in the parole process purportedly making it more difficult to get parole “does not alter the sentence of the court or impose a new sentence.”
Justin Lee Ironhawk, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that “conditional release is a mandatory aspect of the sentence to be imposed by the district court on statutorily designated sex offenders.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
to adopt rules setting standards and procedures for granting and revoking release.” –39 (Minn. 2001).
Minn. 2023
3 Third, appellants sought a declaration that the restoration statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.165, “shall not be read 2 “Supervised release is the current term for the release practice formally known as parole.” State v. Schwartz
Minn. 2021
State v. Schwartz , n.4 (Minn. 2001) (recognizing the Department’s “broad discretion” in making release decisions).
State of Minnesota ex rel. Gerald Browneagle, Appellant, vs. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Ford, d at 405; 142 (Minn. 2001).
Jason Rhoades, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Daniel Lynn Conley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Schwartz , -41 (Minn. 2001) (observing that statutes grant the commissioner authority to administer conditional release).3 In sum , we hold that appellant’s challenge to the DOC’s administration of his sentence is not properly before us. See Schnagl, d at 303-04; (Minn.
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Antwone Ford, Minn. 2019
n.4 (Minn. 2001) (recognizing that “broad discretion [should be] accorded [to] those making release decisions”), broad discretion is not unbounded discretion.
State of Minnesota, ex rel, Robert Young, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Schwartz , n.4 (Minn. 2001).
State v. Roy 910 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roy 910 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Schwartz , , 142 n.4 (Minn. 2001).
Joseph Bergeron, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Schnagl, d at 299, 302–03 (holding, in case involving allegedly illegal extension of conditional-release term, that “judicial review of the Commissioner’s 5 administrative decision implementing the sentence imposed may be obtained by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus”); n.3 (Minn. 2001) (noting that judicial review of commissioner’s decision to revoke supervised or conditional release is available through petition for writ of habeas corpus).
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Joshua Sather, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Demetris L. Duncan v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 887 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota, ex rel. Demetris L. Duncan v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 887 N.W.2d 271 Minn. 2016
1; (explaining that the time spent in prison as part of a criminal sentence “is presumptively equal to two-thirds of the executed sentence,” with the remaining one-third “to be served as supervised release”).
Eric Matthew Hopper v. Tom Roy, Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Eric Matthew Hopper v. Tom Roy, Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the analogous context of conditional release, the supreme court has reviewed release conditions to determine whether they are “reasonably related to the offense and [do] not unduly restrict the [parolee’s] liberty.”
John Excel Arradondo v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Excel Arradondo v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.4 (2001); see Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd.
Darrel Mckee v. Steve Hammer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Darrel Mckee v. Steve Hammer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Richard Carlson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Richard Carlson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1(b) (2014); d 85, 89 (Minn. App. 2000) (concluding that “parole revocation is not within the district court’s original jurisdiction”), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
While on supervised release, he is in the legal custody of the commissioner of corrections and is "subject to re-incarceration for breach of a condition of release.”
Jason James Lindgren v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason James Lindgren v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 302; (stating that conditional release begins after the imposition of sentence and is supervised by an administrative agency).
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 859 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 859 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2015
n.3 (Minn. 2001); see also State v. Clark, 270 Minn. 181, 183, (recognizing that “habeas corpus may be used as a postconviction procedure to inquire into alleged violations of freedoms considered to be basic and fundamental”).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-42 & n.4 (Minn. 2001) (rejecting argument that a no-contact with minors probation condition is unreasonably restrictive and vague when a defendant has that condition explained).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Mikell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Mikell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Duncan v. Roy 830 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1(b) (2012); (“A person on supervised release remains in the state’s legal custody and is subject to re-incarceration for breach of a condition of release.”).
State v. Brist 799 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Brist 799 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-40 (Minn.2001) (stating that commissioner has authority over matters of supervised release); -21 (Minn.App.2000) (“[T]he Commissioner of Corrections, not the sentencing court, is responsible for determining the conditions of a prisoner’s incarceration.”), review denied (Minn. Nov
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 798 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 798 N.W.2d 542 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
This remains true after the supreme court’s in which the appellant filed both a habeas petition and a postconviction petition.
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Nexus v. Swift 785 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Brayton v. Pawlenty 781 N.W.2d 357 Minn. 2010
Kachina v. State 744 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Kachina v. State 744 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2008