State v. Pugh

28 Citing cases

  1. State v. Blakey

    No. A23-1200 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 23, 2024)

    "Minnesota courts therefore do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences." State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Minn.App. 2008) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008). "A district court may not impose a no-contact order as part of an executed sentence unless the order is expressly authorized by statute."

  2. State v. Lovejoy

    A12-1711 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2013)   Cited 2 times
    Remanding to the district court to determine whether the offenses arose from a single course of conduct when the record was undeveloped regarding the circumstances surrounding the downloading of 11 pictures depicting children engaged in sexual conduct on the same date, but at different times

    The legislature has the exclusive authority to define the punishments and range of sentences for offenses. State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn. App. 2008). When a district court imposes an executed prison term, the Minnesota Department of Corrections determines the conditions of imprisonment. Minn. Stat. § 609.105, subd. 2 (2010); State v. Cook, 617 N.W.2d 417, 420-21 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn.

  3. State v. Watkins

    A11-1324 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    An appellate court reviews a criminal sentence "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." Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd. 2(b) (2010); State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008).

  4. State v. Sollitto

    No. A23-0531 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2024)

    Minnesota courts "do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences." State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Minn.App. 2008) (citing State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13, 17 (Minn. 1982)), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008). Although the legislature has authorized courts to impose terms of probation, Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 1(a)(1)-(2) (2022), a sentencing court does not have authority to set the terms of a prisoner's incarceration, State v. Cook, 617 N.W.2d 417, 421 (Minn.App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 21, 2000).

  5. State v. Larkins

    No. A15-1269 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016)

    "[A] district court may not impose a no-contact order as part of an executed sentence unless the order is expressly authorized by statute." State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008). While no-contact-type orders are allowed by statute in domestic-abuse crimes, see, e.g. Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 4 (2014), no statute permits the issuance of a no-contact order in conjunction with the crime of robbery.

  6. State v. Yeo

    A13-0607 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2014)

    A district court must act within the limits of the applicable statutes when imposing a sentence. State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008).

  7. State v. Beng

    A11-1974 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    "[A] district court may not impose a no-contact order as part of an executed sentence unless the order is expressly authorized by statute." State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008).

  8. State v. Brist

    799 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that statement made unwittingly to government informant is nontestimonial

    We review a sentence "to determine whether the sentence is inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, in-appropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court." Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd. 2(b) (2008); State v. Pugh, 753 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn.App. 2008). Minnesota courts "do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences."

  9. Pugh v. Minnesota

    555 U.S. 1182 (2009)

    Vernon PUGH, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.Case below, 753 N.W.2d 308. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.

  10. State v. Wilder

    2018 N.D. 93 (N.D. 2018)   Cited 7 times

    [¶ 20] This is consistent with courts’ decisions in other jurisdictions, which have held that a sentencing court cannot order no contact as part of an executed sentence in the absence of a specific statutory provision explicitly allowing it. See, e.g. , Laux v. State , 821 N.E.2d 816, 818-19 (Ind. 2005) (holding the court could not order no contact with victim’s family when it sentenced defendant to life in prison because no contact order was not authorized by statute, legislature provided other ways to protect family); State v. Post , 279 Kan. 664, 112 P.3d 116, 120 (2005) (holding no contact order was an illegal sentence because it did not conform to statutory sentencing provisions, statutes only allowed the court to impose conditions when a defendant is sentenced to probation or community corrections); State v. Pugh , 753 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008) (holding statutes did not authorize the court to issue a no-contact order as part of an executed sentence). [¶ 21] Our sentencing statutes do not authorize a sentencing court to order no contact as part of a prison sentence; however, the district court also concluded it had authority to protect victims and order no contact as part of Wilder’s prison sentence under N.D. Const. art. I, § 25. Article I, § 25, N.D. Const., is a new constitutional provision, which was passed by initiated measure in November 2016.