Cited by

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

486 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Thomas Henry Bundy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Allen Hible Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Allen Hible Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Henry Bundy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.” d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Mikell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Mikell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
On the appeal of the probation-revocation decision, and we ordered a remand on that issue.
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Clear and convincing evidence 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 discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Martez Antonio Richard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Martez Antonio Richard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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. Larry Brian Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Brian Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Prince Lashone Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. N.K.I. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. N.K.I. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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. Prince Lashone Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2014
district court abused its discretion because the probation condition appellant violated was not a condition imposed by the district court.1 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. Alton Dominique Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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. Katherine Ann Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ortega Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ortega Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.” d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980).
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Ann Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mae Norma Przymus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mae Norma Przymus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(requiring only a single willful violation of the terms of probation).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Alan Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Lee Nystrom Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Alan Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Lee Nystrom Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harold Hilsgen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harold Hilsgen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980).
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
To revoke probation and execute the sentence, however
Pageau v. State 820 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Bee Yang v. State 805 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Bee Yang v. State 805 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
After hearing arguments, the district court revoked appellant’s for accessing pornography on his computer in violation of a condition of his probation, executed his sentence, and imposed a ten-year conditional-release term.
State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
would be appropriate, and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. J.E.S. 763 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. JES 763 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. JES 763 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
a juvenile court is required to execute a sentence unless the court finds mitigating factors that justify continuing the stay.
State v. J.E.S. 763 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
a juvenile court is required to execute a sentence unless the court finds mitigating factors that justify continuing the stay.
State Ex Rel. Marlowe v. Fabian 755 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State Ex Rel. Marlowe v. Fabian 755 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Marlowe cites the standard applied by the district courts in probation-revocation hearings, in which a violation must be *795 "intentional or inexcusable.”
State v. Cottew 746 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2008
State v. Cottew 746 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2008
In imposing this sanction, the district court identified the specific condition that was violated and found that the violation was intentional
State v. Johnson 743 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Johnson 743 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 2008