Vickla v. State
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SCHELLHAS, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of postconviction relief, arguing primarily that the district court erred in sentencing him to the statutory maximum under the career-offender statute. Because we conclude that appellant’s sentence is unreasonable and excessive, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
Based on allegations that appellant William Paul Vickla and his girlfriend deposited, or attempted to deposit, counterfeit checks, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant with aiding and abetting offering a forged check over $2,500 in violation…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- State v. HoustonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. RhodesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Ture v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- State v. GellerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vickla v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011