Legal Opinion
State v. Bluhm
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 17, 2003No. C6-02-1775PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge. *
Appellant challenges her sentence for fifth-degree controlled-substance crime, arguing that (1) the district court erred in concluding it was required to incarcerate appellant for six months; and (2) Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 3(b) (2000), does not require a mandatory minimum incarceration period of six months. Because the district court erred in concluding that it was required to sentence appellant to a mandatory six-month incarceration, we reverse and remand.
FACTS
Appellant Amber Bluhm was charged with first-degree and fifth-degree controlled-substance violations…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- State v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- State v. HumesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- State v. OsterlohSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- In Re Welfare of C.R.M.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. BluhmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- State of Iowa v. Cameron James HessSupreme Court of Iowa · 2022
- State v. BluhmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004