predatory-offender registration requirement (Minnesota) · Go Syfert
← Minnesota issues

predatory-offender registration requirement in Minnesota

7 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Lopezgreen
minn · 2010 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2016
2 sentences

2016See State v. Lopez, 778 N.W.2d 700, 705 (Minn. 2010) (reviewing de novo whether defendant was required to register as predatory offender); State v. Patterson, 819 N.W.2d 462, 464 (Minn. App. 2012) (“Because resolution of [the issue of whether a defendant was required to register as a predatory offender] is based on interpretation of the offender- registration statute, the district court’s implicit determination that [defendant] is required to register as a predatory offender is subject to de novo review.”), review denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2012).

2015Appellant relies primarily on State v. Lopez, where the supreme court determined that an offender’s controlled-substance conviction did not arise from the same set of circumstances as a later-dismissed kidnapping charge, precluding the predatory offender registration requirement. 778 N.W.2d 700, 706-07 (Minn. 2010).

22
Kaiser v. Stategreen
minn · 2002 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024See Kaiser v. State, 641 N.W.2d 900, 907 (Minn. 2002) (holding that the statutory duty to register as a predatory offender is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea because it is not part of defendant’s punishment).

11
State v. Pattersongreen
minnctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016See State v. Lopez, 778 N.W.2d 700, 705 (Minn. 2010) (reviewing de novo whether defendant was required to register as predatory offender); State v. Patterson, 819 N.W.2d 462, 464 (Minn. App. 2012) (“Because resolution of [the issue of whether a defendant was required to register as a predatory offender] is based on interpretation of the offender- registration statute, the district court’s implicit determination that [defendant] is required to register as a predatory offender is subject to de novo review.”), review denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2012).

11
Breeding v. Swensongreen
minn · 1953 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016But habeas corpus “may not be used as a substitute for . . . [an] appeal; as a motion to correct, amend, or vacate; or as a cover for a collateral attack upon a judgment.” Breeding v. Swenson, 240 Minn. 93, 96 , 60 N.W.2d 4, 7 (1953).

2016But habeas corpus “may not be used as a substitute for . . . [an] appeal; as a motion to correct, amend, or vacate; or as a cover for a collateral attack upon a judgment.” Breeding v. Swenson, 240 Minn. 93, 96 , 60 N.W.2d 4, 7 (1953).

11
Campos v. Stategreen
minnctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015Finally, appellant relies on Campos v. State, 798 N.W.2d. 565, 568 (Minn. App. 2011), rev’d on other grounds by 816 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. 2012), and cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 938 (2013), to assert that Padilla overruled Kaiser.

11
Longoria v. Stategreen
minnctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008See Longoria v. State, 749 N.W.2d 104, 106-07 (Minn.App.2008), pet. for rev. filed (Minn. June 12, 2008).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Rud v. Fabian green
minnctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2016Pollard, 878 N.W.2d at 343-44 ; Rud, 743 N.W.2d at 298 . 3 A. Challenge to Original Sentence Throughout his brief, Arradondo challenges the legality of his original sentence, specifically the ten-year conditional-release term and the predatory-offender-registration requirement.

12016–2016
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections green
minnctapp · 2016
1 sentence

2016Pollard, 878 N.W.2d at 343-44 ; Rud, 743 N.W.2d at 298 . 3 A. Challenge to Original Sentence Throughout his brief, Arradondo challenges the legality of his original sentence, specifically the ten-year conditional-release term and the predatory-offender-registration requirement.

12016–2016
Campos v. State green
minn · 2012
1 sentence

2015Finally, appellant relies on Campos v. State, 798 N.W.2d. 565, 568 (Minn. App. 2011), rev’d on other grounds by 816 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. 2012), and cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 938 (2013), to assert that Padilla overruled Kaiser.

12015–2015
McHenry v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County neutral
scotus · 2013
1 sentence

2015Finally, appellant relies on Campos v. State, 798 N.W.2d. 565, 568 (Minn. App. 2011), rev’d on other grounds by 816 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. 2012), and cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 938 (2013), to assert that Padilla overruled Kaiser.

12015–2015
Kaiser v. State green
minnctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2002Id. at 54 .

2002Id. at 54 .

12002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MN § Minn. Stat. § 243.166 (6) MN § Minn. Stat. § 480A.08 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check