Edstrom v. State
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- State v. AustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Breeding v. SwensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- State Ex Rel. Cole v. TahashSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Edstrom v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Northwest v. LaFleurCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Taylor v. LieffortCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1997
- Case v. PungCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Edstrom v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986