Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Moon, 463 N.W.2d 517.

38 citing documents.

Duane Charles Hippe, Jr. v. Dakota County Sheriff Joe Leko Minn. Ct. App. 2026
must be counted in the criminal history score as a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor conviction.” 10 The Minnesota Supreme Court’s – 21 (Minn. 1990), –36 (Minn. 2007), further lead us to conclude that Hippe was convicted of a felony rather than a gross misdemeanor and is therefore prohibited from possessing a firearm, despite the downward durational departure that he received.
Christopher Anthony Davis, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
As the supreme court observed, Minnesota firearm-prohibition statutes are “designed to protect the public safety by keeping firearms out of the hands of convic ted criminals who have comm itted crimes which, in the legislature’s judgment, are indica tions of future dangerousness.” State v. Moon
John Kotowski, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To constitute an ex post facto law, a statute must be a criminal or penal law, it must not be “merely procedural,” it must “apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.” Weaver, 450 U.S. at 29 n.12, 101 S. Ct. at 964 n.12
Michael D. Perseke, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To constitute an ex post facto law, a statute must be a criminal or penal law, it must not be “mer ely procedural,” it must “apply to events occurring before its enactment, and it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.” 8 Graham, 450 U.S. at 29 n.12, 101 S. Ct. at 964 n.12
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Dennis Charles Roberts, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
( “We hold that the definitions of the offenses listed as crimes of violence .
Leon Tijuan Jackson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. S.A.M. 891 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2017
State v. S.A.M. 891 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2017
we stated that, when determining whether a prior offense is a “crime of violence,” a court must consider the elements of the offense, not “its subsequent disposition.” Anderson, d at 136 .
Robert Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. S. A. M. 877 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael David Franklin 861 N.W.2d 67 Minn. 2015
Because in 2013 Franklin did not have five prior felony convictions, the district court erred by sentencing Franklin under the career-offender statute.1 When 1 The State’s is unavailing because the statutory language at issue in each of those cases is different from the statutory language at issue here.
State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Franklin 847 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-19 (Minn.1990), Joseph Moon pleaded guilty to felony theft, and the district court ordered Moon to pay restitution and the costs of prosecution and placed him on probation for up to five years.
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 2014
960 , 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)
State v. Coleman 808 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Coleman 808 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
the supreme court held that the application of section 609.13 rests upon a determination of whether the *35 legislature’s use of the term “felony” in the other statutory provision was intended to reach felony conduct or a felony disposition.
Averbeck v. State 791 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Averbeck v. State 791 N.W.2d 559 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
la (2008) (prohibiting those convicted of crimes from possessing a firearm) is “a measure designed to protect the public safety by keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted criminals who have committed crimes which, in the legislature’s judgment, are indications of future dangerousness.”
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Roy 761 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The statute prohibiting individuals convicted of crimes of violence from possessing firearms is “ ‘designed to protect the public safety by keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted criminals who have committed crimes which, in the legislature’s judgment, are indications of future dangerousness.’ ” (quoting *890 ), aff 'd
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
the fact that Anderson’s felony conviction was later deemed a misdemeanor under section 609.13 does not change the fact that Anderson has been convicted of a crime of violence and is therefore prohibited from possessing a firearm.
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Caldwell 639 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Caldwell 639 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Foster 630 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Foster 630 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Subsequent to Olson , this court addressed a rev’d
State v. Furman 609 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Furman 609 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(firearms restriction correctly applied to defendant despite fact that his felony conviction was deemed misdemeanor under Minn.Stat.
In Re the Disciplinary Hearing Regarding the Peace Officer License of Woollett 540 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1995
In Re the Disciplinary Hearing Regarding the Peace Officer License of Woollett 540 N.W.2d 829 Minn. 1995
State v. Harrington 504 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Harrington 504 N.W.2d 500 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(applying federal ex post facto analysis but reserving interpretation of state Constitution ex post facto clause).