Cited by

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

490 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Matthew Allyn Defries Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Denise Talbot Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court treated the hearing as a probation-revocation hearing and made findings in accordance with State v. Austin , , 250 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Jon Selzler Minn. Ct. App. 2018
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N REYES, Judge On appeal from the district court’s order revoking probation and executing sentence, appellant argues that the district court: (1) abused its discretion by revoking his probation without making findings pursuant to State v. Austin , 2 (2) extended his probationary period past the five-year statutory maximum; and (3) abused its discretion in sentencing him to a double-upward durational departure on his third count of possession of child pornography
State of Minnesota v. Taylor James Pass, and Taylor James Pass, vs. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
sed on the evidence and admissions in the record, the district court must: (1) “designate the specific condition or conditions ” that were violated , (2) “find the violation was inexcusable or intentional,” and (3) determine that “the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” State v. Modtland , ().
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Marie Poillon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2(1)(c)b. 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.” 50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Brian Sobtzak Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Christian Robert Foss Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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. Hiram Abdul Langston Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. D. E. C Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N The district court “has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Bernard Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Before revoking probation and executin g the 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; a nd (3) find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Andrew Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
ed to attend the aftercare program, but was discharged because 1 Prior to 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 outwe ighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald James Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Corey Isaiah Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Modtland , State v. Austin
State of Minnesota v. David Martin Arth Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jack Lawrence Schwab Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jose Fernando Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Dalfonzo Montreal Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from his sentence following a probation violation, appellant argues that the district court (1) erred by failing to apply the analysis set forth in State v. Austin, 2 before revoking a stay of adjudication and imposing a stay of imposition and (2) incorrectly calculated his jail credit.
State of Minnesota v. Gila Angela Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-50 (Minn. 1980) (probation revocation); Lussier v. State , (quotation omitted) (postconviction).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. P. R., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 A district court is not required to follo w 1 when revoking probation in a juvenile- delinquency proceeding.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Paul Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
D E C I S I O N Before a district court revokes a defendant’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 need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Phillip Block Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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.” State v. Austin , -50 (Min n. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Cory L. Dieteman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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. Virgil Ernest Beaulieu Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Despite the lengthy colloquy between Beaulieu and the district court, and states that “probation reflexively sought revocation.
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Lynn Maack Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Before revoking an offender’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. Eric Steven Morgan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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. Travis Lee Beyer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Anthony K. Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Yusuf Ahmed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1 980).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Lawrence Schwab Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Prior to revoking probation, a district court must (1) “designate the specific condition or co nditions 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. Jesse Tyler Schafer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Tyler Schafer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Jon Wilczek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Jon Wilczek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Before revoking 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. Lenny Clyde White Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lenny Clyde White Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Lashawn Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Lashawn Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court may revoke probation only if the court (1) “designate[s] the specific condition” of probation that has been violated, (2) “find[s] that the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) finds that the “need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980)
State of Minnesota v. Cole Michael Habinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cole Michael Habinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 DECISION “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. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court viewed the December 2015 hearing as a probation revocation, rather than an initial sentencing
State of Minnesota v. Vaundell DuWayne Kingbird Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vaundell DuWayne Kingbird Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION Before revoking probation, a district court must conduct a three-step analysis: “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. Kamal Elyas Maqadin Minn. Ct. App. 2016