State v. Jude
State v. Jude, 514 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 1994).
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
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.