Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Shattuck, 689 N.W.2d 785.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(applying Blakely in Minnesota); (noting that “[c]onsistent with Blakely, Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(applying Blakely in Minnesota).
State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004); (applying Blakely in Minnesota).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
While appellate courts may order supplemental briefing on an issue not raised below, see, neither this court nor the supreme court has specifically addressed whether a district court may order supplemental briefing on a matter not raised by the parties.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
542 U.S. at 303, 124 S. Ct. at 2537; d 785, 786 (Minn. 2004) (applying Blakely in Minnesota).
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) (holding that criminal defendants have a right to a jury trial as to the facts on which a court bases an upward departure); (applying Blakely in Minnesota).
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) (holding that the “statutory maximum” for purposes of Apprendi is “the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant” (emphasis omitted)); (applying Apprendi and Blakely to hold that the district court’s imposition of an upward durational departure sentence violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury).
Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
State v. Chauvin 723 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2006
In State v. Shattuck (Shattuck I), we first addressed the effect of the Blakely decision on the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and held that “because imposition of the presumptive sentence is mandatory absent judicial findings * * * the presumptive sentence is the maximum penalty authorized solely by the jury’s verdict for purposes o
State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Adkins 706 N.W.2d 59 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(per curiam); , 341 & n. 1 (Minn.App.2004), review granted (Minn. Jan.
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Dettman 696 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Dettman 696 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
The supreme court granted review in Conger , but stayed further processing of that matter pending a
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(per curiam) 3 ; -45 (Minn.App.2004) (applying Blakely to upward du-rational departures imposed under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and holding that, when sentence is imposed pursuant to a guilty plea, reasons for departing du-rationally must be based sol
State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Barker 692 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Barker 692 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(ordering additional briefing on appropriate remedy); review granted (Minn. Dec.
State v. Senske 692 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Senske 692 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2005