C6-93-1542 Precedential Granted Processed

State v. Jude

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed March 31, 1994 · 514 N.W.2d 779

Cited by

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Joseph Harju. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Hollis Larson. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Samuel Omwando Nyaboga. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Eric Matthew Flanders. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: James Allen Martin. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Kaylis L. Bellaphant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Esteban Trevino. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Leon Onyango Opiacha. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Ely Ovis Emmanuel Sabahot Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. State 818 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Irwin v. Goodno 686 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In re P.T. 657 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2003

all 18 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

416 N.W.2d 734 not in our corpus
Bixby v. State 344 N.W.2d 390
Jackson v. State 329 N.W.2d 66
Davis v. State 324 N.W.2d 802

Opinion text

ORDER Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED (1) that the petition for further review filed by defendant, Douglas Charles Jude, be, and the same is, granted and (2) that the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to modify his sentence be, and the same is, affirmed. The court of appeals erred in failing to consider defendant’s appeal, which challenged a double durational departure, on the merits. Defendant was free to obtain appellate review by direct appeal, by moving the sentencing court for modification and then appealing, or by seeking postconviction relief and then appealing. State v. Fields, 416 N.W.2d 734, 735-36 (Minn.1987); Bixby v. State, 344 N.W.2d 390, 392-94 (Minn.1984); Jackson v. State, 329 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Minn.1983); Davis v. State, 324 N.W.2d 802, 803 (Minn.1982). Rather than remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the appeal on the merits, as we did in Fields, supra, we have considered defendant’s appeal on the merits and concluded that the double durational departure was justified. Affirmed.