Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Purdy, 589 N.W.2d 496.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We have long recognized that “the expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.” 4 (Minn. App. 1999) ().
Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
9 Pizarro-Rios contended that his sentence expired when the district court filed the February 15, 2018 sentencing order and that, d 714 (Minn. App. 2004), 10 the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to modify his sentence afterward.
Paul Casey Mason, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
oncluding that this court, like the district court, lacked jurisdiction 7 to “modify the sentence to impose further sanctions”); -19 (Minn. App. 2004) (concluding that district court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the terms of conditional release when it had not altered the sentence to include conditional release before sentence expired); -99 (Minn. App. 1999) (“The expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction .”); (holding court lacked j
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But as Christianson poin ts out, “[o]nce a sentence has expired, the court no longer has jurisdiction to modify even what may be an unauthorized sentence.” Martinek v. State , (-99 (Minn. App. 1999))
John Kotowski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“The expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.”
A18-1615 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.”
State v. Franson 921 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Franson 921 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Purdy , , 498 (Minn. App. 1999) ("The expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This “operates as a dis charge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, “[t]he expiration of a sentenc e operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See Black’s Law Dictionary 495 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “discharge”); (stating that the expiration of a sentence “operates as a discharge”).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “[o]nce an inmate completes the terms of imprisonment and supervised release, the inmate’s sentence expires”); (noting that “the court loses jurisdiction to modify a sentence once the sentence has expired”).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Perry Frazier Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jack Perry Frazier Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-99 (Minn. App. 1999) (determining that letter by a law clerk, “not vested with any judicial authority,” was insufficient to amend a sentence to include a conditional release term).
State v. Hannam 792 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hannam 792 N.W.2d 862 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
respondent argues that his sentence may no longer be modified because it has expired.
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Fabian 784 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Fabian 784 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The expiration of a sentence operates as discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.” (Minn.App.
Martinek v. State 678 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Martinek v. State 678 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
However, “[t]he expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.”