DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Henderson, 527 N.W.2d 827.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy Luckhardt Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy Luckhardt Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    4 “Determining conditions of probation is exclusively a judicial function that cannot be delegated to executive agencies.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Alan Gramentz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Alan Gramentz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    (stating that delegation of the district court’s authority in determining conditions of probation was “exclusively a judicial function that cannot be delegated to executive agencies”); (“[T]he court has a duty to exercise its own independent jud
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
  • State of Minnesota v. Peter James Trumble Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Peter James Trumble Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    “Determining conditions of probation is exclusively a judicial function that cannot be delegated to executive agencies.” 828-29 (Minn. 1995).
  • State v. Bradley 756 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Bradley 756 N.W.2d 129 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “Determining conditions of probation is exclusively a judicial function that cannot be delegated to executive agencies.”
  • State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (distinguishing between imposition and administration of a sentence and stating that “trial judges should not be burdened with administrative issues relating to the implementation of conditions of probation” imposed as part of a sentence).
  • Kachina v. State 744 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Kachina v. State 744 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (holding that placement of probationer in special supervision program as condition of his probation was “intermediate sanction” that county corrections department did not have authority to impose).
  • State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
    Validity of Anderson’s Probation Condition Anderson argues that his probation condition is invalid because it is (1) an “intermediate sanction” that must be pronounced by a and (2) a term of his sentence that *139 must be imposed in his presence under the Sixth Amendment.
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    to argue that any conditions of probation must be imposed directly by the sentencing court and that his probation agreement is therefore invalid.
  • State v. Ornelas 675 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Ornelas 675 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2004
    “The imposition of sentences,” including “determining conditions of probation is exclusively a judicial function that cannot be delegated to executive agencies.”
  • State v. Kua Vang 636 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Kua Vang 636 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Maidi 537 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Maidi 537 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1995
    (holding that Special Supervision Program “is an intermediate sanction within the meaning of Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995