Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hockensmith, 417 N.W.2d 630.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- Anthony Keith Meister, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
-
Williams v. State
910 N.W.2d 736
Minn. 2018
7 State v. Hockensmith , , 632-33 (Minn. 1988).
-
A16-1527
Minn. 2018
P. 35 when drafting the Minnesota Rule.7 –33 (Minn. 1988).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Fields, d at 736; see also State v. Hockensmith , , 633 (Minn. 1988) ( noting rule 27.03 , subdivision 9, gives the district court discretion to modify a sentence “ before or simultaneous with revoking the stay of execution ”).
- Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
-
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota
888 N.W.2d 125
Minn. 2016
(stating in a discussion of a district court’s authority prior to the promulgation of the criminal rules that “[a]n illegal sentence could be corrected at any time but a lawful sentence could be modified in the trial court’s discretion only during the duration of the term of court”); see also United
- State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-33 (Minn. 1988) (stating that district court executing previously stayed consecutive sentences has discretion to modify sentences to run concurrently).
- State of Minnesota v. Glenn Kevin Hazley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Glenn Kevin Hazley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Martin David Hutchins, Jr. 856 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Martin David Hutchins, Jr.
856 N.W.2d 281
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
He further cites State v. Hockensmith for the proposition that the Minnesota rules “do[] not give the district court discretion to modify—that is, reduce—a sentence after the defendant has begun serving it.” (discussing Minn. R. Crim.
- State v. Holmes 701 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Holmes 701 N.W.2d 267 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-
State v. Losh
694 N.W.2d 98
Minn. Ct. App. 2005
9; (allowing a defendant to challenge an upward durational departure at a probation-revocation hearing); (same).
- State v. Braun 487 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1992
- State v. Braun 487 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 1992
- Reesman v. State 449 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- Reesman v. State 449 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
- State v. Shields 423 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
State v. Shields
423 N.W.2d 744
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Furthermore, the supreme court recognized the propriety of an appellate court correcting an unauthorized sentence even though that issue had not been raised before the trial court: Defendant urged the court of appeals to correct the sentence in the interests of justice rather than require him to file a postconviction