Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246.

490 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Patrick Alfonso Terrell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Walter John Wessel Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” - 50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Buie Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Abel Villanueva Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Cory Michael Bayer v. Alissa Lea Bayer, n/k/a Alissa Lea Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Michael Donald Caya Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Keith Melvin Baerg Minn. Ct. App. 2022
It is best practice that a probationer be given “a written copy of the conditions of his probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Antone David Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The [district] court has broad 6 discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Bobby James Smitty Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION District courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and execute a sentence and “should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Peters, III Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Carillo Buenaventura Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “The trial court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” - 50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Marie Dvorsak Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation,” and we reverse “only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin John Joyce Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christina Lee Bohnstedt Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Trevor Stenner Shelley Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A probationer must be “given written notice of the alleged grounds for revocation,” but the notice need only be “adequate to warn the appellant of the issues that could come up at the hearing.” n.1 (Minn. 1980) .
State of Minnesota v. Ley Enrique Ortiz Calleja Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Before a district court revokes a def endant’s probation, it must (1) “designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated,” (2) “find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) “find that [the] need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Erik Harrison Gawtry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Austin , - 50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Deondre Ramon Cush Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To revoke probation, a district court “must 1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Lawren John Barse, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Luis Garcia Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “The [district] court has broad discreti on in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reve rsed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Trejuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2022
7 DECISION Before revoking a criminal defendant’s probation, a
State of Minnesota v. James Donald Callender Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Brent Robert Stern Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 D E C I S I O N “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Curt Matthew Craven Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Austin, 5 -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Courtney Jean Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be 5 reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Marvia Lee Jones Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Robert O’Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Terry Carlton Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- 250 (Minn. 1980), were met, revoked appellant’s probation, and executed his presumptive sentence.
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Eric Kraven Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Before revoking probation, the district court must (1) “designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated”; (2) “find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable”; and (3) “find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Aaron Burk Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Keon La Shawn Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Before revoking probation, the district court must undertake a “three -step analysis”—it must (1) “designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated,” (2) “find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) “find tha t need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. M.N.M Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Before revoking probation, the district court must “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the polici es favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Herbert Earl Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2021
ortant to the district court—the fact that both offenses involved domestic assaults against the very 5 State v. Austin established that “before probation be revoked, the court must 1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Leake Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The [district] court has broad discreti on in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reve rsed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Deontranelle Leslie Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Cody Michael Thorson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
Respondent, vs. Minn. 2021
465 U.S. at 438; see State v. Austin , .
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Harold Specht Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A revocation is proper only if a district court (1) designates the specific conditions of probation that have been violated, (2) finds that the violations were “intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) finds “that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Ross William Bryniarski Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION Before revoking probation, the district court must “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Donald Eugene Scaife Minn. Ct. App. 2021
2(1)(c), finds that Scaife intentionally or inexcusably violated it, and finds that the “need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Paul Holm Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Before revoking probation, the district court must “(1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; (2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and (3) find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Stacie Rebecca Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2021
erred by revoking her probation because the revocation was based on a single violation—termination from drug court—and the majority of Corbett’s drug-court infractions were “technical.” “The [district] court has br oad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. L. P. K Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Charles Clinton Ames Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. D.D. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION A district court “has broad discretion in de termining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation.”
State of Minnesota v. David Devon Bryant Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation ” and we will reverse “only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Shaniese Latrice Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Amy Christine Lukes-Quinn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To revoke probation, a district court must “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that w ere violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Ryan Potter Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).