Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hemmings, 371 N.W.2d 44.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
27, 1986); State v. Hemmings , (affirming revocation when probationer failed to complete treatment and could not get accepted into another facility).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
13, 1987); (upholding revocation of probation for failure to complete sex-offender treatment despite years remaining in the probationary period be cause the record showed that appellant was unamenable to probation).
Donald Gordon Moore, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
27, 1986); (affirming revocation when probationer was discharged from o ne treatment program and not accepted into another).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
27, 1986); State v. Hemmings , (affirming revocation when the probationer was discha rged from one treatment program and not accepted into another).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
27, 1986); -47 (Minn. Ap p. 1985) (affirming probation r evocation when probationer failed to complete sex-offender treatment and was considered unamenable to treatment).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ustin factor based on offender’s being found with “58 grams of marijuana,” “near exhaustion of relevant programming opportunities,” and the determination that continued probation would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation when offender flau nted the law by standing across the street from a park with drugs in his backpack), aff’d, State v. Hemmings , (affirming probation revocation when the offender refused to comply with a treatment program).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
( affirming revocation when the probationer was “unamenable to treatment” because of his refusal to comply with a treatment program).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 44, 47 (Minn. App. 1985) (affirming probation revocation when evidence supported district court’s finding that offender was “unamenable to treatment”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
27, 1986); (affirming a probatio n revocation when the evidence supported a district court’s finding that a probationer was “unamenable to treatment”).
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Demon Pate Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Demon Pate Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to revoke probation where “[a]ppellant was terminated from the sex offender treatment program because his response was found to be poor”).
Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
By deciding to plead guilty, Sykes waived his claim now that “he had no intent.” (Minn.App.
State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(probation properly revoked when defendant’s response to sex offender treatment program was poor and experts recommended termination of treatment).
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Morrow 492 N.W.2d 539 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
the court conditioned a stay of imposition of sentence upon defendant serving six months in jail and completing a sex offender treatment program.
State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
27, 1986); (probation revoked and presumptive sentence imposed because offender terminated from treatment program).
State v. Swanson 404 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Swanson 404 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Moot 398 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Moot 398 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rock 380 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rock 380 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Daschendorf 371 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Daschendorf 371 N.W.2d 255 Minn. Ct. App. 1985