Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thoma, 569 N.W.2d 205.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Thoma , -09 (Minn. App. 1997), aff’d mem.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(reversing a stay of adjudication but noting that, “[t]o the extent that the assault was less serious than the typical cas e of misdemeanor assault, the trial court was free to be lenient in sentencing the defendant” on remand); State v. Thoma , -09 (Minn. App. 1997) (stating that the presence of mitigating factors did not justify a stay of adjudication), aff’d mem.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Bruce Martin 849 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Bruce Martin 849 N.W.2d 99 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Freeman v. State 804 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Freeman v. State 804 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(noting that appellate decision on merits that does not decide jurisdictional problem is not precedent on appellate jurisdiction), aff'd mem.
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
that “a stay of adjudication is considered a pretrial order for purposes of appeal.” ( aff'd mem., ).
In Re the Welfare of J.L.P. 701 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of J.L.P. 701 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Wright 699 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Wright 699 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
On December 22, 2004, a special-term panel of this court questioned jurisdiction over the state’s aff'd, mem., (classifying stays of adjudication as pretrial orders for purposes of appeal).
State v. Lee 693 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lee 693 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
aff'd mem., this court held that a district court’s stay of adjudication in a non-felony case was appealable by the state as a “pretrial order” under Minn. R.Crim.
In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z. 648 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z. 648 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
18, 2000); -09 (Minn.App.), aff’d mem.
State v. Hoelzel 639 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2002
State v. Hoelzel 639 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2002
State v. Hoelzel 621 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Hoelzel 621 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Minnesota law provides that “a sentence constitutes a final judgment, or adjudication, of conviction.” (citing Minn.R.Crim.P.
State v. Ohrt 619 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Ohrt 619 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Smith v. State 615 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Smith v. State 615 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Pearson 609 N.W.2d 630 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(possible loss of a job due to criminal conviction is not a “special circumstance”; rather it is a typical consequence of a conviction for a serious offense); (collateral consequences of conviction for underage drinking and driving, including loss of employment due to driver’s license suspension, not “special circumstances”), aff'd mem.
State v. Scaife 608 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Scaife 608 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
The trial court’s desire to prevent the collateral consequence of a loss of a driver’s license “does not by itself constitute ‘special circumstances’ warranting a stay of adjudication.” aff'd mem.
State v. Prabhudail 602 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Prabhudail 602 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-208 (Minn.App.1997), aff'd mem.
State v. Washburn 602 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Washburn 602 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Verschelde 595 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1999
State v. Verschelde 595 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1999
reported at (table), aff'g -08 (Minn.App.1997); Minn.R.Crim.
State v. Verschelde 585 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Verschelde 585 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 1998