Cited by

(observing that arguments based on mere assertion and unsupported by argument or authority are waived on appeal).

( declining to consider arguments based on mere assertion and unsupported by argument or authority on appeal).

“A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Andersen , (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS We generally review a restitution order for an abuse of the district court’s “broad discretion.”

(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection” (quotation omitted)); see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co

We review a district court’s “broad discretion to award restitution” for “abuse of 6 that discretion.”

(assignments of error based on assertions and without legal authority are waived on appeal).

DECISION “A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Andersen

The district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted).

3 “An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” ().

The district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.”

“A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” .

(explaining that arguments based merely on assertions and not supported by argument or legal authority are waived “unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection” (quotation omitted)).

unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”

of Minn., n.1 (Minn. App. 1994) (declin ing to address allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation); see also Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying this aspect of Schoepke).

Instead, he generally claims that the state “did engage in unprofessional conduct.” An appellant forfeits an assignment of error that is based on “mere assertion” and unsu pported by argument or authority “unless prejudicial error is obvious upon mere inspection.” State v. Andersen , (holding 11 an appellant forfeits an alleged error when failing to timely assert it).

A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and its decision “will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”

The district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unle ss they are clearly erroneous.” State v. Andersen , (citation omitted).

A district court “has broad discretion to award restitution,” and “[t]he district court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.”

See State v. Schwartz , -41 (Minn. 2001) (observing that statutes grant the commissioner authority to administer conditional release).3 In sum , we hold that appellant’s challenge to the DOC’s administration of his sentence is not properly before us. See Schnagl, d at 303-04; (explaining that “a motion in a criminal case is not the proper procedural vehicle to seek review of the administrative actions of the DOC”).

(applying the principle that an assignment of error in a brief based on “mere assertion” and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).

“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argum ent or authorities in appellant’ s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotations omitted).

(“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (quotation omitted)).

We may consider an issue not raised on appeal if the “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”

Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., (applying Schoepke).

10 Appellant cites no authority and provides no argumen t to further his assertion s. Because the issues were not adequately briefed and no prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection, we do not consider appellant’s argument.2 d 910, 915 (Minn. 2015) (stating that an assignment of error in a brief based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).

“A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Andersen

D E C I S I O N “A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Andersen

D E C I S I O N “A district court has broad discretion to award restitution, and the district court’s order will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Andersen

8, 2017); State v. Andersen , (stating that mere assertio ns of error without supporting legal authority or argument are waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection).

We may consider an issue on appeal, even when it is not raised in or supported by appellant’s brief, if the “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”

is waived and will not be conside red on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”