Supreme Court of Minnesota· 6/8/2006

State v. Osborne

Citations

715 N.W.2d 436
2006 Minn. LEXIS 357
2006 WL 1549940

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that at the time of the defendant’s sentencing, “our case law had consistently rejected any Blakely-type claim”
noting that a contrary result would “expect defendants to continue, formalistically, to make motions or objections based on arguments that we have repeatedly rejected as being without legal merit”
imposing a 122-month sentence, which was a 24-month upward departure from the presumptive 98-month sentence
imposing a 225-month sentence, which was a 67-month upward departure from the presumptive 158-month sentence
noting that we had “consistently rejected any Blakely-type claim” and that we could not “expect defendants to continue, formalistically, to make motions or objections based on arguments that we have repeatedly rejected as being without legal merit”
explaining in a case pending when Blakely was decided that the defendant was not advised of his right to have a jury trial on sentencing factors and so did not waive that right

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hanson, Paul, Anderson, Barry, Gildea

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

55 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.