Cited by

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

486 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jarvaughn Douglas Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(collectively referred to as “the Austin factors”).
State of Minnesota v. Peter James Trumble Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Roger Prout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter James Trumble Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[B]efore revoking probation, 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 [the] need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.’” -05 (Minn. 2015) (alteration in original) ().
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Roger Prout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980) (holding that “before probation [is] revoked, 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. Larry Kenneth Karius Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Larry Kenneth Karius Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 632, 636-37 (Minn. 2008); (holding that “before probation [is] revoked, 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. Byron Dean Sayers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Harley Johansen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Harley Johansen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4 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. Byron Dean Sayers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
UNPUBLISHED OPINION REYES, Judge Appellant Byron Sayers challenges his probation revocation
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Earl Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Earl Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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 4 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. James Paul Wilkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Paul Wilkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Max Dylan Loosen-Scholer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Max Dylan Loosen-Scholer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis Joseph Petermeier Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis Joseph Petermeier Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Jo Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Jo Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez, a/k/a Jesus Ivan Lopez-Torres Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Timothy Zitzloff Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Timothy Zitzloff Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez, a/k/a Jesus Ivan Lopez-Torres Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Darryl Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darryl Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Keenen Rashad Agee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Keenen Rashad Agee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Mohamed Alpha Bah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erika Anne Seibold Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erika Anne Seibold Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Alpha Bah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Cedric Demon Pate Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Demon Pate Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION 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 of Minnesota v. R.A.G. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. R.A.G. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Allen Bartyzal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Allen Bartyzal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION 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. Christopher Alan Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Alan Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(adopting a three-step analysis for future guidance to the district courts in revoking probation).
State of Minnesota v. Tremayne Anthony Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tremayne Anthony Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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 the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2015