DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hutchinson v. State, 679 N.W.2d 160.

22 citing documents.

  • Johnson v. State 916 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2018
  • Johnson v. State 916 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2018
    See Hutchinson v. State , , 162 (Minn. 2004).
  • A17-0883 Minn. 2018
    Because Johnson did not file a direct appeal of either of his test-refusal convictions, the conviction became final when the time for filing a direct appeal expire d. See Hutchinson v. State
  • Luna-Pliego v. State 904 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Luna-Pliego v. State 904 N.W.2d 916 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    -62 (Minn. 2004) (applying Griffith and Lewis).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    -94 (Minn. 2006); (noting that a case is final when “a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or fina lly denied”).
  • Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    (stating that a case is “final, for purposes of retroactivity,” when “a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or finally denied” (quotations omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • A16-1713 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    (stating that a case is “final, for purposes of retroactivity,” when “a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or finally denied” (quotations omitted)).
  • Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (Misquadace is not retroactive).
  • State v. Burrell 837 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Burrell 837 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2013
    (recognizing that a conviction is not final until “a judgment of conviction has been rendered” and “the availability of appeal exhausted”) ().
  • State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    The supreme court has held that “[bjecause we limited application of our holding [in Misquadace ] to pending and future cases, the holding does not apply to [a] conviction [that] was final before Misquadace was decided.” (holding that a case is “pending” for purposes of application of Misquadace when time for direct appeal had not yet expired), review denied (Minn. Aug.
  • Moua v. State 778 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2010
  • Moua v. State 778 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2010
    (holding that a conviction is final for retroactivity purposes where “a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or ...
  • Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    tate, ( and citing O’Meara and Teague for proposition that “if a defendant’s conviction was already final at the time the new rule of law was announced, the defendant ordinarily may not take advantage of the new rule because it will not be retroactive”); -65 (Minn.2004) ( “was not based on an interpretation or clarification of [statute],” but “established a new rule of law” and, therefore, does not apply to a conviction final before it was decided).
  • State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (holding that appeal suspends a judgment but dismissal of appeal makes judgment final).