Cited by

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

490 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Efrem Andre Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficien t 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. Amonte Dajon Pate Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Before a district court may revoke a defendant’s probation and execute a stayed sentence, “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.”
Donald Gordon Moore v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”
Candy Michelle Ostlund v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5 Generally, we review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a petition for postconviction relief, or a probation- revocation decision, State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Laura Cerda Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Cerda challenges her probation revocation, arguing that the need for confinement did not outweigh policy considerations favoring her continued probatio n. “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke 6 probation,” and we reverse “only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Trevelle Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
He challenges the district 2 court’s arguing that (1) the district court relied on unnoticed violations to find that he violated conditions of probation, (2) there was insufficient proof that the violations were intentional or inexcusable, and (3) there was insufficient proof that the need for confinement outweighed the policies fav
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Cardinale Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation .”
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Daniel Kriesel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court’s decision to revoke probation and execute a sentence “cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations,” but instead “requires a showing that the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Joel Case Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Terry Izeal Heggs Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court credited the probation officer’ s testimony and concluded that appellant failed to successfully complete the Teen Challenge program: 1 In State v. Austin , , the Minnesota Supreme Court established that, to revoke probation, the district court must address three factors.
State of Minnesota v. Corey Rashad Culberson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Luke Alexander Dean Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To revoke an o ffender’s 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. Brian Edward Harper Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In State v. Austin, the supreme court held that the district court mu st make three findings before revoking probation: “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusabl e; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Kristen Marie Stradtmann Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Casey Belden Hoskins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Before revoking probation, the distri ct 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. Dale Edward Lehman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Christopher Ramat Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Davante Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The [distr ict] 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. Shawn Lorenzo Foote Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Daniel Ibarra Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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).
James Leon Nordrum, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Tom Jr. Trass Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. R. L., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To revoke probation in a juvenile delinquency proceeding
State of Minnesota v. Myron Lynn Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Cf. State v. Austin , (stating that the decision to revoke probation “cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical vi olations but requires a showing that the offender’ s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity” (quotations omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Trevelle Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Ivan Dahl Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Paul Poignee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To revoke 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. Nathan Gregory Beltz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Cody Padraic Trott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Jose Brewer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Terry Kenneth Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Adam John Berge Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When 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 v. Austin , .
State of Minnesota v. Shane Douglas Wellman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N Before revoking probation, a district court must “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation wa s intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Cressdina Danika Bondeson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Craig Stevens Handeland Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Drey Lamar Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.” 6 -50 (Minn. 1980).
Samuel Wayne Behrens, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To revoke probation, a district court must identify the specific conditions of probation that were violated, find that those violations were “intentional or inexcusable,” and “find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” .
State of Minnesota v. Paul Matthew Marsh Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Chapel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Austin , -250 (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Justin David Gruchow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N The district court has “broad d iscretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Franklin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Austin , ; (citing Austin).
State of Minnesota v. Kelsey Anna Ballman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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. Johnathan Demetrius Lee Henry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A 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. Sam Joseph Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Henry Boser Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Donald Cody Tarbell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. David Lawrence Pillatzki, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 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.” -50 (Minn. 1980); (stating that the state must prove a probation violation by clear and convincing evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Severo Perez-Nava Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Brian Sobtzak Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and executed his sentence because it failed to offer substantive reasons for the revocation in its findings for the sec ond and third factors