Legal Opinion

State v. Carlson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 13, 1929No. 27,834PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

The relator was convicted of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. An order denying a new trial was affirmed by this court. State v. Carlson, 178 Minn. 118, 226 N. W. 206. On the going down of the mandate he applied to the trial court for a modification of the sentence, which was denied. Claiming that his application was denied solely for the reason that the trial court was of the opinion that it had no power to modify the sentence after the expiration of the term at which it was imposed, he brought the matter here by certiorari.

Although it appears that the trial court doubted…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Ahern v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  2. Czaplinski v. Warden of Maryland PenitentiaryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  3. State v. FedericoArizona Supreme Court · 1968
  4. State Ex Rel. Lillemoe v. TahashSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  5. State Ex Rel. Bennett v. RiggSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960

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

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

Powered by the Exa API