Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ornelas, 675 N.W.2d 74.

70 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Gene Stensrud Minn. Ct. App. 2026
5 “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).
State of Minnesota v. Deanna May Jaeger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Raul Segundo Benitez-Rivero Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Eric Demont Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. David Homer South Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[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.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Donald Caya Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But “before a probation violation can occur, the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.”
State of Minnesota v. Keith Melvin Baerg Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[B]efore a probation violation can occur, the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.”
State of Minnesota v. Ley Enrique Ortiz Calleja Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Additionally, “the condition alleged to have been violated must be a condition of probation that has in fact been imposed by the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Erik Harrison Gawtry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Luis Garcia Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Rose Askvig Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[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”).
State of Minnesota v. Terry Izeal Heggs Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Casey Belden Hoskins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Lorenzo Foote Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S. R. L., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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).
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Paul Poignee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Franklin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Demetrius Lee Henry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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)).
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Henry Boser Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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).
State of Minnesota v. David Lawrence Pillatzki, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Brian Sobtzak Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(although neither party briefed issue, interests of justice served in analyzing identical issue as present case).
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Denise Talbot Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Jon Selzler Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Marie Poillon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To satisfy due process , a probationer must “be given fair warning of those acts which may lead to a loss of liberty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Christian Robert Foss Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. D. E. C Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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”) .
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. G. H., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[B]efore a probation violation can occur, the condition alleged to have been violated must have been a condition actually imposed by the court.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Bernard Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2(1)(c)(b), 3(1); State v. Ornelas
State of Minnesota v. David Martin Arth Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Lynn Maack Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Tyler Schafer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Tyler Schafer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Obataye Ogunmola Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Obataye Ogunmola Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter James Trumble Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter James Trumble Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Nowacki 880 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(acknowledging the district court’s broad discretion in probation-revocation matters).
State of Minnesota v. Darryl Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darryl Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Keenen Rashad Agee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Keenen Rashad Agee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
11; (addressing the first Austin factor after appellant raised the issue for the first time upon its appeal to that court).
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Eugene Jenkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Eugene Jenkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alan Ohlegren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alan Ohlegren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Darius Venton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Marc Darius Venton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.6 (Minn. 2004); Minn. R. Crim.