Free Newsletter
00-3197-CR State v. Cantwell
Minnesota Lawyer//July 30, 2001
Brian W. Cantwell appeals from a judgment convicting him of theft, and from an order denying postconviction relief. His original judgment of conviction contained a sentencing provision the trial court subsequently clarified. The issue is whether the clarification actually increased the original sentence, and thus violated Cantwell’s double jeopardy protections.
We conclude it did not, and therefore affirm.
This opinion will not be published.
Dist IV, Dane County, Bartell, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Bruce J. Rosen, Madison; Susan C. Blesener, Madison
For Respondent: David J. Becker, Madison; Ann Sayles, Madison
Related Content
Top News
- Minnesota artists consider what’s next in AI copyrights
- Defining ‘and’ in sentencing statute falls to Supreme Court
- Hashtag rates higher libel protection
- Court: Performance issues, not bias, prompted union to fire organizer
- Robot milker case yields $122M
- 2023 Up & Coming Attorneys
- 2023 Unsung Legal Heroes
- Appeals court takes up transgender health coverage case
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Oral arguments at high court stir lively debates
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Advance waivers: Lessons from Paul Hastings vs. Coca Cola
- Perspectives: Recent cellphone ruling recalls high court cases
- The Unfrazzled Lawyer: Supercharge your unfrazzled lawyer efforts
