Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Xiong, 638 N.W.2d 499.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Dione Davenport Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Dione Davenport Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, d 186, 194 (Minn. 2003); Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(determining the district court did not err by finding Xiong’s violation intentional and inexcusable where Xiong provided his explanation and argument on the matter to the district court, and the district court listened to the argument and explanation “but did not find it persuasive”), rev.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. Christian , Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew James Preston, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
urt has explained that, once a probationer admits to the violations and waives the first part of a revocation hearing, “ the state is no longer obliged to present evidence to prove the violations, and the district court may base its finding on the violation report and the probationer’s waiver, which serves as a stipulation to the state’s allegations in the violation report.” State v. Xiong , , review denied (Minn. Apr.
A17-1750 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Travis Joseph Petermeier Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis Joseph Petermeier Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 499 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. R.A.G. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. R.A.G. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(affirming a probation revocation when the district court considered conduct that was not alleged as a violation as “an aggravating factor” in its decision to revoke), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In Re ZK 695 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In re the Expulsion of Z.K. 695 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re ZK 695 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
[6] review denied (Minn. April 16, 2002) in support of its proposition that the commissioner did not have authority to review the matter.
In re the Expulsion of Z.K. 695 N.W.2d 656 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
. review denied (Minn. April 16, 2002) in support of its proposition that the commissioner did not have authority to review the matter.