Cited by

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

353 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Modtland , State v. Austin
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
( d 246, 249 -50 (Minn. 1980)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Modtland , -08 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Despite the lengthy colloquy between Beaulieu and the district court, and states that “probation reflexively sought revocation.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When making Austin findings, a district court should “seek to convey [its] substantive reason[] for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Modtland , −08 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Tyler Schafer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Tyler Schafer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Jon Wilczek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Jon Wilczek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lenny Clyde White Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Lenny Clyde White Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The third Austin factor requires the district court to “balance the probationer’s interest in freedom and the state’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety, and base [its] decisions on sound judgment and not just [its] will.” -07 (Minn. 2005) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Lashawn Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Lashawn Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court may revoke probation only if the court (1) “designate[s] the specific condition” of probation that has been violated, (2) “find[s] that the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) finds that the “need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980)
State of Minnesota v. Cole Michael Habinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cole Michael Habinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 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. Vaundell DuWayne Kingbird Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vaundell DuWayne Kingbird Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kamal Elyas Maqadin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kamal Elyas Maqadin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Jarvaughn Douglas Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jarvaughn Douglas Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court must make specific findings that establish the 4 “substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon” and may not simply “recit[e] the three factors and offer[] general, non-specific reasons for revocation.”
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
“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.’” (quoting Austin, d at 249-50).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Roger Prout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quoting Austin, d at 251).
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. 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
(quoting Austin, d at 251).
State of Minnesota v. Byron Dean Sayers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Earl Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Earl Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Paul Wilkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James Paul Wilkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(quoting Austin, d at 251).
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
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Jo Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Jo Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-08 (Minn. 2005) (rejecting this court’s application of a “sufficient-evidence exception” to the requirement for Austin findings).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Timothy Zitzloff Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Timothy Zitzloff Minn. Ct. App. 2016