DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

486 citing documents.

  • State v. Osborne 732 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Osborne 732 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
    The decision to revoke probation “cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations but requires a showing that the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity.” (quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Cottew 728 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Cottew 728 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    Appellant challenges the district court’s imposition of jail time and home confinement with electronic monitoring as intermediate sanctions for her probation violations
  • State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    (reversing disorderly conduct and fifth-degree assault conviction where defendant’s right to counsel violated); Murray, d at 455 (reversing probation revocation where defendant not advised of right to counsel); (decision to revoke probation “cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations”).
  • Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Austin Findings 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).
  • In Re the Welfare of R. V. 702 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • In Re the Welfare of R. V. 702 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Modtland 695 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Modtland 695 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2005
    Appellant Patrick James Modtland appeals from an unpublished decision by the court of appeals holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Modtland’s probation because Modtland did not object to the court’s and because the probation revocation hearing record contained sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Austin factors had been satisfied.
  • State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Losh 694 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 679 N.W.2d 169 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Ornelas 675 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Ornelas 675 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2004
    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 v. Bollin 670 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Bollin 670 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
  • State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
    in the EJJ probation revocation context.
  • State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
    in the EJJ probation revocation context.
  • State v. Hamilton 646 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Hamilton 646 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re the Welfare of J.K. 641 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • In Re the Welfare of J.K. 641 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Xiong 638 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Xiong 638 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Schwartz 615 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Schwartz 615 N.W.2d 85 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Kaquatosh 600 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Kaquatosh 600 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Martin 595 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Martin 595 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Bradley 592 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Bradley 592 N.W.2d 886 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Balma 549 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Balma 549 N.W.2d 102 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Hlavac 540 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Hlavac 540 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Theel 532 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Theel 532 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    The district court has broad discretion when deciding whether to revoke probation and will be reversed “only if there is a *267 clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn.1980).
  • State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Thompson 486 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Thompson 486 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Weisberg 473 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Weisberg 473 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    -50 (Minn.1980) (before probation may be revoked, court must find that violation was intentional or unexcusable).