Legal Opinion

Edstrom v. State

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 3, 1985No. C8-85-881PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

Norman Edstrom appeals from a trial court order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that: 1) he is entitled to parole because the standard sentence under the current sentencing guidelines is less than the time he has already served; 2) the state’s requirement that he successfully complete a sex offender treatment program prior to parole violates due process; and 3) the transfer of parole decision-making authority from the Minnesota Corrections Board to the Commissioner of Corrections violates the ex post facto clause of the United States…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. State v. AustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. Breeding v. SwensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
  4. State Ex Rel. Cole v. TahashSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  5. Edstrom v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Northwest v. LaFleurCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
  2. Taylor v. LieffortCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
  3. Case v. PungCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  4. Edstrom v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API