§
Subdivision 1.Generally.
An appeal to the court of appeals may be taken by the defendant or the state from any sentence imposed or stayed by the district court according to the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the district court of Minnesota. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, a dismissal or a resolution of an appeal brought under this section shall not prejudice an appeal brought under any other section or rule.
§
Subd. 2.Procedure.
(a) When an appeal taken under this section is filed, the court administrator of the district court shall certify the transcript of the proceedings and any files or records relating to the defendant, the offense, and the sentence imposed or stayed, that the supreme court by rule or order may require.
(b) On an appeal pursuant to this section, the court may review the sentence imposed or stayed to determine whether the sentence is inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court. This review shall be in addition to all other powers of review presently existing. The court may dismiss or affirm the appeal, vacate or set aside the sentence imposed or stayed and direct entry of an appropriate sentence or order further proceedings to be had as the court may direct.
§
Subd. 3.Limitation on defendant's right to seek sentence modification.
(a) As used in this subdivision, "appeal" means:
(1) an appeal of a sentence under rule 28 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
(2) an appeal from a denial of a sentence modification motion brought under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(b) If a defendant agrees to a plea agreement and is given a stayed sentence, which is a dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant may appeal the sentence only if the appeal is taken:
(1) within 90 days of the date sentence was pronounced; or
(2) before the date of any act committed by the defendant resulting in revocation of the stay of sentence;
whichever occurs first.
(c) A defendant who is subject to paragraph (b) who has failed to appeal as provided in that paragraph may not file a petition for postconviction relief under chapter 590 regarding the sentence.
(d) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to:
(1) alter the time period provided for the state to appeal a sentence under rule 28 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; or
(2) affect the court's authority to correct errors under rule 27.03, subdivision 10, of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[See Note.]
§
Subd. 4.Release pending appeal.
This section shall not be construed to confer or enlarge any right of a defendant to be released pending an appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
112
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
State v. Losh, 721 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 2006).
State v. Losh, 721 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 2006).
· cites it 84× “We granted Losh's petition for further review and, after hearing oral argument, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain Losh's appeal in light of Minn.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr., 855 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 8× “2d at 88, we have express statutory authority to “review the sentence imposed or stayed to determine whether the sentence is inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued…”
Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Over the last two decades since our initial decisions permitting departures from the guidelines presumptive sentence in first-degree criminal sexual conduct cases, we have seen much *590 change in the laws relating to sex offender risk management, including not only increased…”
State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Laws at 768 (codified as Minn.Stat. § 244.11 (2004)). In 1997, the legislature amended Minn.”
State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 5× “2011) (concluding that Minn.Stat. § 244.11, subd. 2(b) (2010), allows appellate courts to review sentences imposed under Minn.”
State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Appellate courts do have the authority to modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is inconsistent with statutory requirements, Minn.Stat. § 244.11, subd. 2(b) (2006), or that modification is "in the interest of `fairness and uniformity.”
Vickla v. State, 793 N.W.2d 265 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 7× “Viekla counters that Minn.Stat. § 244.11, subd. 2(b), allows an appellate court to review the district court’s exercise of its discretion to sentence a repeat-felony offender to the statutory maximum.”
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota, 883 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2016).
· cites it 4× “01 (2014); and Minn. Stat. § 244.11 (2014). Because we are vacating Jackson’s sentence and granting the relief he requests under the Eighth Amendment, we need not and do not address his state-law claims.”
State v. Smith, 669 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “" Minn. Stat. § 244.11 , subd. 2(b) (2002).”
Neal v. State, 658 N.W.2d 536 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Having determined that severe aggravating factors are not required to impose more than a double durational departure under the dangerous-offender statute, we next consider Neal’s contention that his 480-month sentence for the kidnapping is excessive and unreasonable.”
Spann v. State, 704 N.W.2d 486 (Minn. 2005).
· cites it 4× “"); Minn.Stat. § 244.11, subd. 1 (2004) ("An appeal to the court of appeals may be taken by the defendant or the state from any sentence imposed or stayed by the district court according to the rules of criminal procedure for the district court of Minnesota.”
State v. Leja, 684 N.W.2d 442 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “1983); Minn.Stat. § 244.11, subd. 2(b) (2002). The state argues that State v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.