Cited by

This was error because, to revoke probation based on a violated probationary condition, “the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.”

“[B]efore a probation violation can occur, the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.” see also 9 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota 6 Practice § 36-60 (4th ed. 2020) (“If a condition was not actually and properly imposed, no violation can result even if the defendant believes and admits that it was a condition of probation.”).

But “before a probation violation can occur, the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.”

“[B]efore a probation violation can occur, the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.”

Additionally, “the condition alleged to have been violated must be a condition of probation that has in fact been imposed by the district court.”

“Inherent” in this court’s consideration of which specific probation condition was violated “is the question of whether the condition was actually imposed as a condition of probation.” 10 (Minn. 2004).

“Inherent” in this court’s consideration of which specific probation condition was violated “is the question of whether the condition was actually imposed as a condition of probation.” State v. Ornelas , (Mi nn.

“[B]efore a probation violation can occur, the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.” see also 9 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice— Criminal Law & Procedure § 36-60 (4th ed. 2020) (explaining that if “a condition was not actually and properly imposed, no violation can result even if the defendant believes and admits that it was a condition of probation”).

8 “The imposition of sentences, includin g determining conditio ns of probation is exclusively a judicial function that cannot be delegated to executive agencies.” (quota tion omitted).

6 revocation.” R.V., d at 303; –80 (Minn. 2004) (reversing revocation of adult probationer’s probation because the condition alleged to have been violated was not imposed by district court).

“A district court ‘ has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.’” (-50 (Minn. 1980)).

D E C I S I O N “A district court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” 4 State v. Ornelas , (quotation omitted).

5 D E C I S I O N “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980); (stating that the state must prove a probation violation by clear and convincing evidence).

(although neither party briefed issue, interests of justice served in analyzing identical issue as present case).

To satisfy due process , a probationer must “be given fair warning of those acts which may lead to a loss of liberty.” (quotation omitted).

violated the terms of 7 his release by clear and convincing evidence.1 -80 (Minn. 2004) (noting that “condition al leged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court”) .

(“[B]efore a probation violation can occur, the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.”).

2(1)(c)(b), 3(1); State v. Ornelas

“A district court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” (quoting Austin, d at 249−50) (quotation marks omitted).

“Inherent in [an appellate court’s] consideration of the specific condition designated as having been violated is the question of whether the condition was actually imposed as a condition of probation.” d 74, 79 (Minn. 2004).

(acknowledging the district court’s broad discretion in probation-revocation matters).

11; (addressing the first Austin factor after appellant raised the issue for the first time upon its appeal to that court).

n.6 (Minn. 2004); Minn. R. Crim.