State v. Jude

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Jude

514 N.W.2d 779, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 254, 1994 WL 132147

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 31, 1994

DocketNo. C6-93-1542

StatusPublished

This text of 514 N.W.2d 779 (State v. Jude) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jude, 514 N.W.2d 779, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 254, 1994 WL 132147 (Mich. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED (1) that the petition for further review filed by defendant, Douglas Charles Jude, be, and the same is, granted and (2) that the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to modify his sentence be, and the same is, affirmed. The court of appeals erred in failing to consider defendant’s appeal, which challenged a double durational departure, on the merits. Defendant was free to obtain appellate review by direct appeal, by moving the sentencing court for modification and then appealing, or by seeking postconviction relief and then appealing. State v. Fields, 416 N.W.2d 734, 735-36 (Minn.1987); Bixby v. State, 344 N.W.2d 390, 392-94 (Minn.1984); Jackson v. State, 329 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Minn.1983); Davis v. State, 324 N.W.2d 802, 803 (Minn.1982). Rather than remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the appeal on the merits, as we did in Fields, supra, we have considered defendant’s appeal on the merits and concluded that the double durational departure was justified. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED (1) that the petition for further review filed by defendant, Douglas Charles Jude, be, and the same is, granted and (2) that the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to modify his sentence be, and the same is, affirmed. The court of appeals erred in failing to consider defendant’s appeal, which challenged a double durational departure, on the merits. Defendant was free to obtain appellate review by direct appeal, by moving the sentencing court for modification and then appealing, or by seeking postconviction relief and then appealing. State v. Fields, 416 N.W.2d 734, 735-36 (Minn.1987); Bixby v. State, 344 N.W.2d 390, 392-94 (Minn.1984); Jackson v. State, 329 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Minn.1983); Davis v. State, 324 N.W.2d 802, 803 (Minn.1982). Rather than remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the appeal on the merits, as we did in Fields, supra, we have considered defendant’s appeal on the merits and concluded that the double durational departure was justified. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 N.W.2d 779, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 254, 1994 WL 132147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jude-minn-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack