Horoshak v. State
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
In a constitutional challenge to Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 11a, Andrew Horos-hak contends that limiting retroactive relief petitions to sentences reduced by legislative changes in the durational cells of the guidelines grid denies equal protection to individuals serving sentences reduced by other legislative modifications in the guidelines matrix. Because the distinction in subdivision 11a serves a legitimate state purpose, we uphold its constitutionality and affirm the postconviction court’s denial of Horoshak’s petition for retroactive sentence reduction.
FACTS
In 1986…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- McGinnis v. RoysterSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Miller Brewing Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- STATE EX REL. KOST. v. EricksonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. HoroshakCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jones v. BruceDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1996