Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wink v. Stategreen2 sentences2023A violation of probation hearing “involves two stages: ‘(1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation.’” Johnson v. State, 247 Md. App. 170, 182-83 (2020) 12 (quoting Hammonds v. State, 436 Md. 22, 31 (2013)); see Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 332 (1989). 2020STANDARD OF REVIEW A probation revocation proceeding typically involves two stages: “(1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation.” Hammond v. State, 436 Md. 22, 31 (2013) (citing Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 332 (1989)). | 5 | 6 |
Hammonds v. Stategreen2 sentences2023A violation of probation hearing “involves two stages: ‘(1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation.’” Johnson v. State, 247 Md. App. 170, 182-83 (2020) 12 (quoting Hammonds v. State, 436 Md. 22, 31 (2013)); see Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 332 (1989). 2020STANDARD OF REVIEW A probation revocation proceeding typically involves two stages: “(1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation.” Hammond v. State, 436 Md. 22, 31 (2013) (citing Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 332 (1989)). | 2 | 3 |
Black v. Romanogreen2 sentences1992A probation revocation hearing “typically involves two distinct components: (1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation.” Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 332 , 563 A.2d 414, 415 (1989) (quoting Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 611 , 105 S.Ct. 2254, 2257 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636, 642 (1985)). 1992A probation revocation hearing “typically involves two distinct components: (1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation.” Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 332 , 563 A.2d 414, 415 (1989) (quoting Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 611 , 105 S.Ct. 2254, 2257 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636, 642 (1985)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Dopkowskigreen2 sentences2020“At the second stage, that of whether the court’s discretion should be exercised to revoke probation, appellate review is for an abuse of discretion.” Wink v. State, 317 Md. at 338 . “[A]buse of discretion will be found only if the trial court has erroneously construed the conditions of probation, has made factual findings that are clearly erroneous, or has acted arbitrarily or capriciously in revoking probation.” State v. Dopkowski, 325 Md. 671, 678 (1992) (citation omitted). 2019Under the first inquiry, "the hearing judge must find the essential facts comprising a violation of a condition by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Dopkowski , 325 Md. 671 , 677, 602 A.2d 1185 (1992) (internal quotations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023A violation of probation hearing “involves two stages: ‘(1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation; and (2) a discretionary determination by the sentencing authority whether violation of a condition warrants revocation of probation.’” Johnson v. State, 247 Md. App. 170, 182-83 (2020) 12 (quoting Hammonds v. State, 436 Md. 22, 31 (2013)); see Wink v. State, 317 Md. 330, 332 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.