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. Goff, 418 N.W.2d 169.

26 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
  • Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
    The State relies on State v. Goff , and our discussion of the burden of proof in the context of a challenge to the defendant's criminal-history score.
  • A16-1527 Minn. 2018
    and our discussion of the burden of proof in the context of a challenge to the defendant’s criminal-history score.
  • Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    We begin our analysis with the supreme court’s
  • State of Minnesota v. Ronald Robert Forster Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Ronald Robert Forster Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    rst that appellant makes a proper challenge to the validity of the prior conviction which requires more “than simply request[ing] that the state be put to its burden of proving that the prior conviction was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s [rights]” and includes evidence in the record such as “a detailed sworn affidavit” indicating such rights were violated (), review denied (Minn. Apr.
  • State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (requiring only “some evidence” that prior convictions may be invalid “to put the state to its burden of proof”).
  • State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    To properly raise the constitutionality of a prior license revocation and shift the burden of proof to the state, an appellant must (1) promptly notify the state that her constitutional rights were violated during a prior license revocation; and (2) “produce evidence in support of that contention with respect to each challenged [revocation].” Fussy, d at 603 ().
  • Hill v. State 483 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1992
  • Hill v. State 483 N.W.2d 57 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Fussy 467 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Fussy 467 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 1991
    The state argues that Nordstrom has been circumscribed by this court’s a case that arose in the context of sentence enhancement.
  • State v. Fussy 458 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Fussy 458 N.W.2d 428 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    (requirement of detailed sworn affidavit or equivalent production of evidence in support of motion).
  • State v. Otto 451 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Otto 451 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has specified the nature of a
  • State v. Clipper 429 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Clipper 429 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    that a defendant who wants to challenge previous misdemeanor convictions for sentencing purposes has the obligation to notify the state and then to come forward with some evidence indicating that he was not represented by counsel or did not validly waive his right to counsel.
  • State v. Warren 419 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Warren 419 N.W.2d 795 Minn. 1988