Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cottew, 746 N.W.2d 632.

72 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Travis Joseph Petermeier Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 632, 636 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. R.A.G. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. R.A.G. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The required Austin findings ensure that the district court has fully considered any claims by the defendant that revocation is not warranted because his probation violation was either unintentional or excusable, or because revocation would be inconsistent with the public policies favoring probation.”
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. Miranda Lynn Jones 869 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lorelee Marie Hamlin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lorelee Marie Hamlin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Before imposing intermediate sanctions, the district court is only required to “determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that a condition of probation has been violated.” cf. Austin, d at 250 (setting factors to consider before revoking probation and executing a sentence).
State of Minnesota v. J.A.H. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. J.A.H. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The required Austin findings ensure that the district court has fully considered any claims by the defendant that revocation is not warranted because his probation violation was either unintentional or excusable, or because revocation would be inconsistent with the public policies favoring probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones 857 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
State v. Barrientos 837 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2013
1(a)(2); (stating that the district court is permitted to “continue a probationer’s stay and place her on probation in any manner authorized by the statute”).
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1 (2012); (stating that statutory provi *371 sions should be construed to avoid conflict with other statutes).
State v. Ness 834 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2013
State v. Ness 834 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2013
Broad grants of discretion are common and are limited by the principle that all acts of “judicial discretion require[] ‘conscientious judgment, not arbitrary action.’ ” (quoting Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 222-23 , 53 S.Ct.
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 Ex Rel. Marlowe v. Fabian 755 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State Ex Rel. Marlowe v. Fabian 755 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
We note, however, that the supreme court recently indicated: "Due process requires that a defendant be given an opportunity to show that even if a condition of probation was violated, mitigating circumstances exist such that the violation does not warrant revocation.”