DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Calmes, 632 N.W.2d 641.

68 citing documents.

  • Martinek v. State 678 N.W.2d 714 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    “The United States and Minnesota Constitutions, through their due process clauses, ensure that sentencing proceedings observe the standards of fundamental fairness essential to justice.” (quotation omitted).
  • James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (recognizing that due process limits a court’s ability to change a sentence after “the defendant has developed a crystallized expectation of finality in the earlier sentence”).
  • State v. Henning 666 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Borrego 661 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Borrego 661 N.W.2d 663 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Jones 647 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (recognizing that conditional release is aspect of punishment although not an additional punishment in violation of double jeopardy).
  • State v. Wukawitz 644 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Wukawitz 644 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Henning 644 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Henning 644 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Sanders 644 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Sanders 644 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • SHERN v. State 635 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • SHERN v. State 635 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2001