Legal Opinion
State v. Hanf
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 19, 2004No. A04-1058PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.
This appeal is from a sentence for felony test refusal. Appellant argues that the upward dispositional departure, which was based on judicial findings, violates his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Arthur Hanf pleaded guilty to felony refusal to submit to chemical testing. Because Hanf had a zero criminal history score, the presumptive sentence for his offense was 36 months with execution stayed. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines IV, V. The district court,…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. AllenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- State v. SaueCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
- State v. BarkerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. AllenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005