Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Mason v. State, 652 N.W.2d 269.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shain Alan Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Shain Alan Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We have “determined that it is the knowledge of the district court—not the knowledge of the state or the victim—regarding the extent of the victim’s loss that is controlling.” Irby, d at 122 ( rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
Kurt Lee Villa v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. A. B. H., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Mason v. State , -72 (Minn. App. 2002) (declining to vacate a restitution order issued after sentencing when the court did not know the extent of the victim’s loss at sentencing).
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Sullivan Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1(b)(3), to mean that the “the court’s knowledge, rather than the victim’s or the state’s, is determinative.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Erick Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erick Larkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that an appellate court will generally not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court); -73 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that a district court’s failure to inform an offender of the 30-day period for challenging a claim for restitution did not excuse the offender’s failure to comply with the rule), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Abdulkadir Ali Mohamud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Abdulkadir Ali Mohamud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The “true extent of the victim’s loss” is construed from “the court’s knowledge, rather than the victim’s or the state’s [knowledge].” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Louis Steven Baratto Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Louis Steven Baratto Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-73 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. George Alan Vanzee Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Alan Vanzee Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that the district court properly reserved the restitution issue when it had not received the affidavit of one of the victims or competent evidence of her loss at the time of sentencing).
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Brian Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Brian Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
3(b) (“A defendant may not challenge restitution after the 30-day time period has passed.”); (declining to address merits of defendant’s postconviction-relief petition because “district court properly determined that [defendant’s postconviction challenge to the restitution order was untimely”), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Henry 809 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Henry 809 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
P. 33.03 (providing that "[HJack of notice of entry by the court administrator does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed"); -73 (Minn.App.2002), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Ma *602 review denied (Minn. Dec.
In Re the Welfare of M.R.H. 716 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of M.R.H. 716 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
But it is the district court’s lack of knowledge that allows it to amend or issue a restitution order after sentencing, not the victim’ (construing subdivision 1(b)(3) to “mean that the court’s knowledge, rather than the victim’s or the state’s,” is determinative), review denied (Minn. Dec.