Cited by

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

353 citing documents.

Daniel Justin Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellant reasons that this requirement of a finding is analogous to the requirement for findings when probation is revoked
State of Minnesota v. Agustin Jaime Barron Aranjo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ian Charles Montana Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Agustin Jaime Barron Aranjo Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The court must make these three findings “on the record before probation is revoked.” –69 (Minn. 2003) (holding that court must consider Austin factors in an EJJ revocation); Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Ian Charles Montana Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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 their decisions on sound judgment and not just their will.” -07 (Minn. 2005) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Henry Bundy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Henry Bundy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
st find the presence of at least one of three policy factors: (1) “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender”; (2) “the offender is in need of correctional 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.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. K.K.O. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. K.K.O. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In State v. Modtland, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the district court’s findings must be specific and “seek to convey [the district court’s] substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”
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. N.K.I. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. N.K.I. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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 their decisions on sound judgment and not just their will.” State v. 8 Modtland, -07 (Minn. 2005) (quotations omitted).
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
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Ann Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court must “create [a] thorough, fact-specific record[] setting forth [its] reasons for revoking probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Mae Norma Przymus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mae Norma Przymus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
1 The district court may satisfy this requirement by “stating its findings and reasons on the record, which, when reduced to a transcript, is sufficient to permit review.” n.4 (Minn. 2005).
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
d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harold Hilsgen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harold Hilsgen Minn. Ct. App. 2014
These findings assure that the district court creates a “thorough, fact-specific record[] setting forth [its] reasons for revoking probation” and “prevent[] courts from reflexively revoking probation when it is established that a defendant has violated a condition of probation.”
State v. Rottelo 798 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rottelo 798 N.W.2d 92 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“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.” -07 (Minn.2005) (quotation omitted).
State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
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
(stating defendants must be afforded procedural due process when courts revoke parole or probation under *67 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. J.E.S. 763 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating defendants must be afforded procedural due process when courts revoke parole or probation under *67 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct.
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
The supreme court reaffirmed the third requirement in 2005 and noted that “[t]his process prevents courts from reflexively revoking probation when it is established that a defendant has violated a condition of probation.”
State v. Osborne 732 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
State v. Osborne 732 N.W.2d 249 Minn. 2007
I. 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.” (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
Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
However, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently determined that the “sufficient evidence” exception previously recognized by this court cannot “be reconciled with the language of Austin itself.”
State v. Carman 696 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2005
State v. Wintz 696 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
State v. Carrera-Valdez 696 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2005
State v. Bennett 696 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 2005
State v. Carman 696 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2005
ORDER By order dated March 29, 2005