Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Krotzer, 548 N.W.2d 252.

80 citing documents.

Minn. 2024
though not central to our holdings, in cases we decided after the promulgation of Guidelines 2.B.2.a —when the Guidelines first used the word “probation” in connection with custody status points—we have referred colloquially and in passing to the conditions associated with a stay of adjudication as “conditions of probation.” –56 (Minn. 1996) (overruled in part as D-6 recognized in Lee, d at 496).
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. J. S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
g purpose of juvenile-delinquency law and providing that the law be “liberally construed” to carry out that purpose); -66 (Minn. App. 1995) (stating that dismissing charges after a defendant completes a continua nce without adjudication has the same legal effect as dismissing the charge for any other reason), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
History of the Standard The Minnesota Supreme Court first considered a district court’s authority to stay an adjudication of guilt over the state’s
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Lathrop relies on an opinion in which the supreme court upheld a stay of adjudication
A17-0934 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. M.D.T. 831 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 2013
State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Martin 823 N.W.2d 913 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(discussing prosecution’s charging authority).
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The supreme court has also observed that “it is standard practice among judges to order defendants to serve a jail term of less than one year as a ‘condition’ of their probationary term under section 152.18.” (stating that with a stay of adjudication, “the district court has the power to impose terms and conditions of probation, including incarceration for up to 12 months”
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(dictum), aff'd in part & rev’d in part on other grounds
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
State v. Peck 773 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2009
("Under established separation of powers rules, absent evidence of selective or discriminatory prosecutorial intent, or an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, the judiciary is powerless to interfere with the prosecutor's charging authority.”).
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
4 (2006) (defining consent as “words or overt actions by a person indicating a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act” (emphasis added)); Steinbrink, d at 293 ; (Coyne, J., dissenting) (stating that statutory rape “is based on recognition of the fact that young girls and boys lack both judgment *195 and the understanding- of the possible long-term consequences of their actions so that they are incapable of giving meaningful consent to sexual intercourse,” whi
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
State v. Hart 723 N.W.2d 254 Minn. 2006
* * * While dismissing the complaint under section 631.21 might have avoided the need for a stay of adjudication, the prosecutor would have been free to reinstate identical criminal charges against [the defendant].’ ” ()); (holding that when a case is dismissed in the furtherance of justice, “[t]he state’s remedy is not an appeal but to either reissue the amended complaint or try to get the court to reconsider its decision”); (Minn.197
State v. C.P.H. 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. CPH 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. C.P.H. 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
§ 609.095(b) (2004) (providing that district court may not refuse to adjudicate defendant guilty except upon agreement of parties or as authorized by statute); -55 (Minn.1996) (stating that district *703 court has inherent judicial power to stay adjudication over prosecutor’s objection in special circumstances).
State v. CPH 707 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
§ 609.095(b) (2004) (providing that district court may not refuse to adjudicate defendant guilty except upon agreement of parties or as authorized by statute); -55 (Minn.1996) (stating that district *703 court has inherent judicial power to stay adjudication over prosecutor's objection in special circumstances).
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
We have said that, unless the prosecutor abuses his or her discretion or demonstrates improper intent, “the judiciary is powerless to interfere with the prosecutor’s charging authority.”
State v. Wright 699 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Wright 699 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-55 (Minn.1996); -87 (Minn.App.2001), review denied (Minn. May 14, 2001).
State v. Lussier 695 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lussier 695 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
It is the prerogative of the state to request a sentence from the district court, -54 (Minn.1996), and an improper motive cannot be established by an accurate statement of the law, In re Lord, 255 Minn. 370, 381
State v. Lee 693 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lee 693 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Finally, our decision here is entirely consistent with the supreme court’s description of a stay of adjudication as a “final disposition of a criminal case” and a “sentencing option.”
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
Stay of Adjudication Streiff relies on two cases involving stays of adjudication to support her view that the district court had the authority to accept her plea to the lesser charges
State v. Colby 657 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Colby 657 N.W.2d 897 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The district court’s decision to stay adjudication is within the court’s “inherent judicial power” when the decision is supported by “special circumstances.” -55 (Minn.1996).
In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z. 648 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of J.R.Z. 648 N.W.2d 241 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that the inherent judicial authority to stay adjudication should be exercised sparingly and in “special circumstances”); -55 (Minn.1996) (district court's decision to stay adjudication over prosecutor's objection did not violate separation-of-powers principles); -15 (Minn.App.1999) (deportation as a collateral consequence of an adjudication not a "special circumstance”), review denied (Minn. J
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
(stating that the imposition of a sentence within the limits prescribed by the legislature is purely a judicial function).
State v. Hoelzel 639 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2002
State v. Hoelzel 639 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 2002
criminal trial are: (1) finding of not guilty with judgment of acquittal entered accordingly; (2) finding the defendant otherwise entitled to discharge with judgment entered accordingly; (3) finding of guilty with judgment of conviction entered accordingly; (4) retaining of unadjudicated convictions under section 609.04; or (5) issuing a with final disposition entered on the record accordingly.
State v. Pearson 637 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2002
State v. Pearson 637 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2002
At the sentencing hearing, the state objected to the stay of adjudication, prohibited a stay.
State v. Angotti 633 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Angotti 633 N.W.2d 554 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Davisson 624 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Davisson 624 N.W.2d 292 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
ANALYSIS I. Interference with Prosecutorial Discretion in Charging Stays of adjudication are within a district court’s “inherent judicial power.” -55 (Minn.1996).