Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Humes, 581 N.W.2d 317.

103 citing documents.

State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
This prohibition protects a criminal defendant from “three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense.”
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
In Re the Civil Commitment of Giem 742 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2007
we examined whether the district court had the authority to resentence a defendant under Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Turck 728 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Turck 728 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In addition, “the legislature does not need to 'append language prohibiting waiver to every mandatory statute to ensure that the statute is given effect.’ ” See Bluhm, d at 652 (quoting State v. Humes, *547 (basing its holding on the canon of statutory construction that “shall” is mandatory)); (concluding that the legislature clearly intended mandatory-minimum sentences), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
V. 3 The Clause protects criminal defendants from “three dis- *237 tinet abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.”
Miller v. State 714 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Miller v. State 714 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Conditional release functions as “a term of supervision,” Wukawitz, d at 520 n. 2, or “probation,” , 319 n. 2 (Minn.1998).
Carrillo v. Fabian 701 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2005
State v. Bluhm 676 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 2004
State v. Bluhm 676 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 2004
However, more recently, in interpreting a conditional release provision, we stated that “[t]he canons of statutory construction provide that ‘shall’ is mandatory” and that the legislature does not need to “append language prohibiting waiver to every mandatory statute to ensure that the statute is given effect.” -57 (Minn. App.1998) (holding that Minn.Stat.
State v. Rhodes 675 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2004
State v. Rhodes 675 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2004
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
27, 1999), arguing these cases overrule Childers and Feinstein .
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
State v. Borrego 661 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Borrego 661 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z. 648 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z. 648 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
16 (2000); (“The canons of statutory construction provide that ‘shall’ is mandatory.” (citation omitted)); see also Kaiser, d at 910 (Page, J., dissenting) (noting that the statute “makes registration mandatory in all cases without exception” and “makes clear that the requirement may not be modified”).
State v. Wukawitz 644 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Wukawitz 644 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
State v. Gilbert 634 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gilbert 634 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
to support its argument.
State v. Calmes 632 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2001
State v. Calmes 632 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2001
-20 (Minn.1998), that the imposition of a conditional release term for certain criminal sexual conduct convictions, including the conviction at issue in this case, is mandatory and nonwaivable.
State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
State v. Calmes 620 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Calmes 620 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
State v. Cook 617 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Cook 617 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Koperski 611 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Koperski 611 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
To support this argument, which stated: [T]he conditional release provisions of section 609.346, subd.
State v. Brown 606 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2000
State v. Brown 606 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2000
7 (1998); (construing conditional release statute)
Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384 606 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384 606 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Leroy 604 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
State v. Leroy 604 N.W.2d 75 Minn. 1999
State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998