Cited by

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

486 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the district court must make 3 ” Barrientos, d at 299.
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
16 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. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
If grounds are found for revocation, the court may do any of the following: continue the stay on the same or further terms, impose intermediate sanctions, or revoke the stay and impose or order the execution of the sentence.
State of Minnesota v. Richard John McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Eugene Jenkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard John McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Prior to revoking probation, the district court must “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that 3 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. Forrest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Eugene Jenkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Brandon Ponthieux Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Brandon Ponthieux Minn. Ct. App. 2015
tence as opposed to the revocation of all four sentences totaling 360 4 months.” Ponthieux further argues that “remand is required under Modtland because of the absence of explicit findings on why the court’s goals could not be served by [his] proposed disposition.” In Modtland, “that district courts must make the following three findings on the record before probation is revoked.”
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
If that’s the case, the Court is somewhat disappointed.5 Our law requires that, before 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.”
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Andrew Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Andrew Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
UNPUBLISHED OPINION REYES, Judge In this probation-revocation appeal, the revocation order must be reversed, and appellant must be reinstated on probation.
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alan Ohlegren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alan Ohlegren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lorelee Marie Hamlin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lorelee Marie Hamlin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A district court has broad discretion to determine if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and will be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” (-50 (Minn. 1980)), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).
State of Minnesota v. J.A.H. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. J.A.H. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–50 (Minn. 1980), including that the need for appellant’s confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation, we affirm.
Cheng Pao Vue v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cheng Pao Vue v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by “rush[ing] to find guilt” based on appellant’s guilty plea to the Anoka County impaired-driving charge
State of Minnesota v. Colin Michael Haven Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Colin Michael Haven Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 246, 249 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Steven E. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Steven E. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3 The parties argued, and the district court analyzed, on the record.
State of Minnesota v. Marc Darius Venton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Darius Venton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Gene Paul Schave Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Paul Schave Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Will Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Will Scott 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. Lamar King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lamar King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Darren Lee Whitelow Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Lee Whitelow Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Agustin Jaime Barron Aranjo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ian Charles Montana Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Agustin Jaime Barron Aranjo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(discussing relevant considerations in a probation revocation proceeding).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Charles Montana Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Patrick William Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2014