Legal Opinion

State v. Hughes

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 18, 2007No. A07-37PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SHUMAKER, Judge.

The district court granted respondent’s petition for postconviction relief, ruling that, because the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay remained an appeal-able issue at the time Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), was decided, he is entitled to the retroactive application of Blakely, even though his conviction had become final and all time for appeal or for a certiorari petition had expired before that decision. Because finality is determined by the date of the entry of the final judgment of conviction, respondent is not…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. State v. ShattuckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  5. State v. OsborneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. HughesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
  2. State v. BorgCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
  3. State v. MaddoxCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API