State v. Purdy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because defendant’s sentence expired, district court lacked ju risdiction to modify it by adding a term of conditional release
• noting that “the court loses jurisdiction to modify a sentence once the sentence has expired”
• determining that letter by a law clerk, “not vested with any judicial authority,” was insufficient to amend a sentence to include a conditional release term
• stating that the expiration of a sentence “operates as a discharge”
• \The expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.\
• “The expiration of a sentence operates as a discharge that bars further sanctions for a criminal conviction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State Ex Rel. Peterson v. Fabian
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2010-06-29· cited 12×
• Martinek v. State
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2004-05-04· cited 8×
• State v. Hannam
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2011-01-18· cited 2×
• State v. Franson
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2018-12-10· cited 2×
• Fidel Pizarro-Rios v. State of Minnesota
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2025-06-02

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Bangert v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1979-07-27· cited 69×
• King v. State
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1997-05-08· cited 18×
• State v. Whitfield
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1992-04-07· cited 5×