Cited by

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

353 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Darryl Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darryl Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Keenen Rashad Agee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Keenen Rashad Agee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-08 (Minn. 2005) (rejecting this court’s application of a “sufficient evidence exception” to the Austin findings requirement).
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Alpha Bah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erika Anne Seibold Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Erika Anne Seibold Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Alpha Bah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When determining if revocation is appropriate, courts must balance the probationer’s interest in freedom and the state’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety, and base their decisions on sound judgment and not just their will.” d 602, 606-07 (Minn. 2005) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Demon Pate Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Demon Pate Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. R.A.G. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. R.A.G. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In creating a record of the three Austin findings, “courts must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Allen Bartyzal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Allen Bartyzal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 just their will.’” –07 (Minn. 2005) (quoting Austin, d at 250–51).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Alan Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Alan Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In creating a record of the three Austin findings, “courts must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”
State of Minnesota v. Tremayne Anthony Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tremayne Anthony Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Forest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Forest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Allen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In determining whether the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation, the district court “must bear in mind that policy considerations may require that probation not be revoked even though the facts may allow it and that the purpose of probation is rehabilitation and revocation should be used only as a last resort when treatment has failed.” (quotations omitted).
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
(quoting Austin, d at 251).
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. Edwin Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-08 (rejecting this court’s application of a “sufficient- evidence exception” to the Austin findings requirement).
State of Minnesota v. Richard John McNeil Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quoting Austin, d at 251).
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).
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
“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. Phillip Andrew Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Andrew Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
606-08 (rejecting this court’s application of a “sufficient-evidence exception” to the requirement for Austin findings).
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. J.A.H. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. J.A.H. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cheng Pao Vue v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Cheng Pao Vue v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Colin Michael Haven Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Colin Michael Haven Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lamar King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lamar King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In making the three Austin findings, the district court “must seek to convey [its] substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.” d 602, 608 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Darren Lee Whitelow Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darren Lee Whitelow Minn. Ct. App. 2015
can most effectively be provided if [the offender] is confined,” or “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” (quotation omitted).
Daniel Justin Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015