Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Welfare of P.C.T., 823 N.W.2d 676.

39 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
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. K. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify a case for adult prosecution.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. E., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. E., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, -87 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
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
“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify a case for adult prosecution.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. J. B., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify a case for adult prosecution.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. J. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A district court has considerable latitude in deciding whether to certify a case for adult prosecution.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. L. W., Jr., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re Welfare of 6 P.C.T., rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. P. G., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
argues that this case is distinguishable from P.C.T., which the court of appeals relied on to characterize H.B.’s positive experience at Bar None as “an occasional willingness to participate in juvenile programming.” d 676, 683 (Minn. App. 2012).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: L. B., III, Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. K. W., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
is correct that this would result in three factors in favor of EJJ and two factors in favor of certification in the first case, a district court ’s application of the six statutory factors is “not a rigid, mathematical equation.” (quotation omitted).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. W. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In the Matter of the Welfare of: X. L. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5 “In presumptive-certification proceedings, the state bears the burden of showing that (1) the juvenile was 16 or 17 years old, and (2) the alleged offense carries a presumptive prison sentence or that it is a felony offense involving a firearm.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of Q. D. T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
3 (2020); rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: B. C. L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. A., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
J.H., d at 39; H.S.H., d at 263.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. J. C., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. D. K. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In presumptive-certification proceedings, the state bears the burden of showing that (1) the juvenile was 16 or 17 years old, and (2) the alleged offense carries a presumptive prison sentence or that it is a felony offense involving a firearm.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. L. L., Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that “the matter must be certified” when certification is presumed and the juvenile “fails to provide sufficient evidence regarding each of the statutory factors” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. V.-L., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court will not reverse the district court’s decision unless its findings are “clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” d 676, 681 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. L. M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Its decision will not be reversed unless [the court’s] findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted) , review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. L. H., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. M. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“I n presumptive -certification proceedings, the state bears the burden of showing that (1) the juvenile was 16 or 17 years old, and (2) the alleged offense carries a presumptive prison sentence or that it is a felony offense involving a firearm.” review d enied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. D. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. D. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Available programming” includes the juvenile’s “attendance at programming events, completion of the events, and 11 demonstrated behavioral changes correlated with the programming.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
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
4(4), directs the district court to consider “the child’s programming history, including the child’s past willingness to participate meaningfully in available programming.” “Available programming” includes “the child’s attendance at programming events, completion of the events, and demonstrated behavioral changes correlated with the programming.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
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
-86 (Minn. App. 2012) (reversing district court’s EJJ certification decision when juvenile’s prior gang-related felony and current gang-related offense outweighed the other factors), review denied (Minn. Feb.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. K. R. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. K. R. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
2(6)(ii); review denied (Minn. Feb.
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
“We cannot emphasize too strongly that the district court must place greater weight on the severity of the alleged crime and the prior delinquency record of the juvenile in deciding whether to certify.” (quoting St.
In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of R.D.M. 825 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
4; (“The district court also abuses its discretion when it fails to afford sufficient weight to the seriousness of the offense and the juvenile’s prior record of delinquency.”).