Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602.

356 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Noah Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Davonte Michael Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. David Homer South Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Sean Douglas English Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The Austin framework requires courts 4 to not only recite the three factors but to “seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied on.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Alfonso Terrell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In making these findings, district courts “must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.” State v. 7 Modtland
State of Minnesota v. Walter John Wessel Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Once a district court finds an intentional or inexcusable violation, it must “determine whether the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Buie Minn. Ct. App. 2022
n.3 (Minn. 2005) (“[T]he Court may, in light of the nature of the probation violation, alter the terms of the defendant’s probation—including imposition of intermediate sanctions .
In re the Marriage of: Cory Michael Bayer v. Alissa Lea Bayer, n/k/a Alissa Lea Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Abel Villanueva Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In making these findings, “courts must seek 5 to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Donald Caya Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Keith Melvin Baerg Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Antone David Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Peters, III Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Alfonso Carillo Buenaventura Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quoting Austin, d at 251).
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Marie Dvorsak Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin John Joyce Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christina Lee Bohnstedt Minn. Ct. App. 2022
District courts must clearly address the three Austin factors and not merely recite them or give “general, non-specific reasons for revocation.”
State of Minnesota v. Trevor Stenner Shelley Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Erik Harrison Gawtry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Deondre Ramon Cush Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 “whether a lower court has made the findings required under Austin.”
State of Minnesota v. Lawren John Barse, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Luis Garcia Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Trejuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court must meaningfully address the three Austin factors and not merely recite them or give “general, non-specific reasons for revocation.”
State of Minnesota v. James Donald Callender Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 251; d 602, 607 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Brent Robert Stern Minn. Ct. App. 2022
sentence should occur only if the court finds that “(1) confinement is necessary to protect the public from the offender’s further criminal activity, (2) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be most effectively provided if he is confined, or (3) not revoking probation and executing the sentence would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Luis Vargas-Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Curt Matthew Craven Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Courtney Jean Petersen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Marvia Lee Jones Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Robert O’Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Carlton Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Eric Kraven Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION I. Appellant challenges the district court’s order revoking his probation
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Aaron Burk Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A district court has broad discretion in de termining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
(stating that “it is not the role of appellate courts to scour the record to determine if sufficient evidence exists to support the district court’s” exercise of its discretion); (observing that sufficiently detailed findings of fact assist appellate
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Keon La Shawn Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Modtland , (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. M.N.M Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Herbert Earl Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2021
” State v. Modtland , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Leake Minn. Ct. App. 2021
at 250; (explaining that the dist rict court must make specific findings on all three Austin factors to revoke probation).
State of Minnesota v. Deontranelle Leslie Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Cody Michael Thorson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
at 250; (explaining that the district court must make specific findings on all three Austin factors to revoke probation).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Harold Specht Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A revocation is proper only if a district court (1) designates the specific conditions of probation that have been violated, (2) finds that the violations were “intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) finds “that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Ross William Bryniarski Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Paul Holm Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Stacie Rebecca Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. L. P. K Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Charles Clinton Ames Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Modtland , d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. D.D. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
e state must esta blish one of the following subfactors: (1) “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender”; (2) “the offender is in need of co rrectional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined”; or (3) “ it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” d 602, 607 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. David Devon Bryant Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Shaniese Latrice Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In making these findings, district courts “must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.” State v. Modtland