Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517.
-
State v. Hansen
805 N.W.2d 915
Minn. Ct. App. 2011
§ 645.16 (2010); (stating that even when a statute has a plain meaning, an appellate court will further construe the statute if it “con-elude[s] that the plain meaning leads to *920 absurd or unreasonable results that depart from the purpose of the statute”).
- Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 802 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District 802 N.W.2d 393 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- 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 supreme court discussed the appropriate remedy when the imposition of a conditional-release term violates a plea agreement.
- State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
- State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
- In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.S.W. 767 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- In Re the Welfare of the Child of S.S.W. 767 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- In re the Risk Level Determination of M.D. 766 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- In Re Md 766 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- In re the Risk Level Determination of M.D. 766 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- In Re Md 766 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Oldenburg v. State 763 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
Oldenburg v. State
763 N.W.2d 655
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-20 (Minn.2003); -73 (Minn.2000)
- State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
- State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
- Miller v. State 714 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- Miller v. State 714 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- Carrillo v. Fabian 701 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2005
- James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
-
James v. State
699 N.W.2d 723
Minn. 2005
(citing Brown, d at 674-75 & n. 6).
- Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2004
- Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc. 684 N.W.2d 404 Minn. 2004
- State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- Martinek v. State 678 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- Martinek v. State 678 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Bluhm 676 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 2004
-
State v. Bluhm
676 N.W.2d 649
Minn. 2004
In other words, when the legislature’s intent is clear from plain and unambiguous statutory language, this court “does not engage in any further construction and instead looks to the plain meaning of the statutory language.”
- State v. Rhodes 675 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2004
-
State v. Rhodes
675 N.W.2d 323
Minn. 2004
to allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea or the court to modify *325 the sentence where a mandatory conditional release term is not included in the maximum executed sentence described in the defendant’s plea petition but the defendant is on notice of the state’s intention to seek the term bef
- James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
James v. State
674 N.W.2d 216
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See (determining that where the imposition of the conditional-release term violated appellant’s plea agreement, the district court may allow the defendant to withdraw his plea; if the plea withdrawal would unduly prejudice the state, the district court may "modify the defendant’s sentence); State v. Jumpi
- State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003
- State v. Jarvis 665 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2003