Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of S.J.T., 736 N.W.2d 341.

31 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. E. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. E. G., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding that, even if district court erred by considering police report not in evidence, juvenile was not prejudiced because information from police report was not included in district court’s conclusions of law and the district court adequately concluded juvenile did not rebut presumption o
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. M. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: G. M. D., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(requiring juvenile appellant to show that district court’s error prejudiced its certification decision), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. B., III, Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
ct court’s finding that this factor favors EJJ is clearly erroneous because respondent would have fewer than 24 months under EJJ supervision while his adult sentence could hypothetically range up to 318 months.2 But while “[i]nsufficient time for rehabilitation under the juvenile system is an appropriate consideration when determining whether to certify a juvenile,” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
Anthony Scott David Auginaush, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In In re Welfare of S.J.T., this court stated that “[i]nsufficient time for rehabilitation under the juvenile system is an appropriate consideration when determining whether to certify a juvenile.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: B. C. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A district court has considerable latit ude in deciding whether to certify, and this court will not upset its decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: W. P. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (considering programming, punishment, and dispositional options together), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. R. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. L. L., Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N “A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify, and this court will not upset its decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. M. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See J.H., d at 36; -54 11 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. T. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(concluding that di strict court’s finding that culpability factor weighed in favor of certif ication was not erroneous where the offender was sole perpetrator), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. D. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. P. R., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. G. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. G. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify, and this court will not upset its decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. M. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. M. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 28, 34 (Minn. 2014); (“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify, and this court will not upset its decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-35 (Minn. 2014); see In re 5 Welfare of S.J.T., (“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify, and this court will not upset its decision unless its findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (quotations omitted)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. J. M. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. J. M. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Further, “[i]nsufficient time for rehabilitation under the juvenile system is an appropriate consideration when determining whether to certify a juvenile.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Welfare of J.H. 829 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of J.H. 829 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“For purposes of certification, the juvenile is presumed guilty of the alleged offenses.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
In re the Welfare of P.C.T. 823 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of P.C.T. 823 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
FACTS “For purposes of certification, the juvenile is presumed guilty of the alleged offenses.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
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
B.N.S., d at 42 ; (Minn.App.
State v. J.E.S. 763 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Execution of the adult sentence is stayed so long as the offender does not violate the provisions of the juvenile disposition and does not commit a new offense.” B.N.S., d at 42 ; review denied (Minn. Oct.