Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.14 (2026)

Revocation Of Stay

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Grounds.

(a) When it appears that the defendant has violated any of the conditions of probation or intermediate sanction, or has otherwise been guilty of misconduct that warrants the adjudication of guilt, or imposition or execution of sentence, the court may without notice revoke the stay and direct that the defendant be taken into immediate custody. Revocation shall only be used as a last resort when rehabilitation has failed.

(b) When it appears that the defendant violated any of the conditions of probation during the term of the stay, but the term of the stay has since expired, the defendant's probation officer or the prosecutor may ask the court to initiate probation revocation proceedings under the Rules of Criminal Procedure at any time within six months after the expiration of the stay. The court also may initiate proceedings under these circumstances on its own motion. If proceedings are initiated within this six-month period, the court may conduct a revocation hearing and take any action authorized under rule 27.04 at any time during or after the six-month period.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.135 or any law to the contrary, after proceedings to revoke the stay have been initiated by a court order revoking the stay and directing either that the defendant be taken into custody or that a summons be issued in accordance with paragraph (a), the proceedings to revoke the stay may be concluded and the summary hearing provided by subdivision 2 may be conducted after the expiration of the stay or after the six-month period set forth in paragraph (b). The proceedings to revoke the stay shall not be dismissed on the basis that the summary hearing is conducted after the term of the stay or after the six-month period. The ability or inability to locate or apprehend the defendant prior to the expiration of the stay or during or after the six-month period shall not preclude the court from conducting the summary hearing unless the defendant demonstrates that the delay was purposefully caused by the state in order to gain an unfair advantage.

Subd. 1a.Violations where policies favor continued rehabilitation.

(a) Correctional treatment is better provided through a community resource than through confinement and would not unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation was not revoked. Policies favoring probation outweigh the need for confinement if a person has not previously violated a condition of probation or intermediate sanction in an open criminal case and does any of the following in violation of a condition imposed by the court:

(1) fails to abstain from the use of controlled substances without a valid prescription, unless the person is under supervision for a violation of section:

(i) 169A.20;

(ii) 609.2112, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clauses (2) to (6); or

(iii) 609.2113, subdivision 1, clauses (2) to (6); 2, clauses (2) to (6); or 3, clauses (2) to (6);

(2) fails to abstain from the use of alcohol, unless the person is under supervision for a violation of section:

(i) 169A.20;

(ii) 609.2112, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clauses (2) to (6); or

(iii) 609.2113, subdivision 1, clauses (2) to (6); 2, clauses (2) to (6); or 3, clauses (2) to (6);

(3) possesses drug paraphernalia in violation of section 152.092;

(4) fails to obtain or maintain employment;

(5) fails to pursue a course of study or vocational training;

(6) fails to report a change in employment, unless the person is prohibited from having contact with minors and the employment would involve such contact;

(7) violates a curfew;

(8) fails to report contact with a law enforcement agency, unless the person was charged with a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony; or

(9) commits any offense for which the penalty is a petty misdemeanor.

(b) A violation by a person described in paragraph (a) does not warrant the imposition or execution of sentence and the court may not direct that the person be taken into immediate custody unless the court receives a written report, signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 358.116, showing probable cause to believe the person violated probation and establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the continued presence of the person in the community would present a risk to public safety. If the court does not direct that the person be taken into custody, the court may request a supplemental report from the supervising agent containing:

(1) the specific nature of the violation;

(2) the response of the person under supervision to the violation, if any; and

(3) the actions the supervising agent has taken or will take to address the violation.

Subd. 2.Notification of grounds for revocation.

The defendant shall thereupon be notified in writing and in such manner as the court directs of the grounds alleged to exist for revocation of the stay. If such grounds are brought in issue by the defendant, a summary hearing shall be held thereon at which the defendant is entitled to be heard and to be represented by counsel.

Subd. 2a.Alternatives to incarceration.

(a) A probation agent must present the court with local options to address and correct the violation including, but not limited to, inpatient chemical dependency treatment when the defendant at a summary hearing provided by subdivision 2 is:

(1) a nonviolent controlled substance offender;

(2) subject to supervised probation;

(3) appearing based on a technical violation; and

(4) admitting or found to have violated any of the conditions of probation.

(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "nonviolent controlled substance offender" is a person who meets the criteria described under section 244.0513, subdivision 2, clauses (1), (2), and (5), and "technical violation" has the meaning given in section 244.195, subdivision 15.

Subd. 3.Sentence.

If any of such grounds are found to exist the court may:

(1) if imposition of sentence was previously stayed, again stay sentence or impose sentence and stay the execution thereof, and in either event place the defendant on probation or order intermediate sanctions pursuant to section 609.135, or impose sentence and order execution thereof;

(2) if sentence was previously imposed and execution thereof stayed, continue such stay and place the defendant on probation or order intermediate sanctions in accordance with the provisions of section 609.135, or order execution of the sentence previously imposed; or

(3) if adjudication was stayed or prosecution was deferred, continue the stay without intermediate sanctions, continue it with intermediate sanctions, or adjudicate guilt and proceed as otherwise provided, including, in the event of a felony conviction, as provided in section 244.10.

Subd. 4.Restoration to liberty.

If none of such grounds are found to exist, the defendant shall be restored to liberty under the previous order of the court.

Subd. 5.Definition.

For the purposes of this section, "stay" means a stay of adjudication, a stay of imposition, a stay of execution, or a deferred prosecution.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 84 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: State v. Barrientos, 837 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Barrientos, 837 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 47× “The State argues that Minn.Stat. § 609.14 grants district courts general authority to extend a defendant’s probation period up to the statutory maximum when *298 she violates the terms or conditions of probation (including payment of restitution), and that section 609.”

State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 11× “Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.14 (1976), which sets forth the procedures governing revocation of probation, the trial court revoked the stay of execution and ordered the defendant taken into immediate custody.”

State v. Everett, 472 N.W.2d 864 (Minn. 1991). · cites it 6× “Defendant argues that the trial court should have suppressed the statements because (a) the probation revocation warrant *867 pursuant to which he was arrested was in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.14 (1990), (b) the arrest on the probation revocation warrant was a pretext so…”

Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984). · cites it 2× “Minnesota's revocation statute, which was accurately summarized in Murphy's notice of probation, see App.”

State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 4× “I, § 7; Minn.Stat. § 609.14, subd. 2 (1978). Since the appellant did not raise this issue at the revocation hearing, the issue is waived.”

Thong v. State, 892 N.W.2d 842 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 19× “Thong argues that the district court violated Minn. Stat. § 609.14 , subd. *846 3(2) upon execution of his sentence by imposing a conditional-release period that was not imposed at the time his sentence was pronounced.”

State of Minnesota v. Miranda Lynn Jones, 869 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 10× “” Minn.Stat. § 609.14, subd. 1(a). If grounds are found for revocation, subject to the limitations of State v.”

State Ex Rel. Ahern v. Young, 141 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. 1966). · cites it 7× “753, § 609.14), the *242 stay and probation were revoked after hearing and petitioner ordered committed to serve the sentence previously imposed.”

In Re the Welfare of J.B., 782 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 2× “29 [dealing with extradition]; (2) a person appealing from a conviction of a felony or gross misdemeanor, or a person convicted of a felony or gross misdemeanor, who is pursuing a postconviction proceeding and who has not already had a direct appeal of the conviction; (3) a…”

State Ex Rel. Halverson v. Young, 154 N.W.2d 699 (Minn. 1967). · cites it 6× “” From the record it next appears that on February 18, 1966, an order was made setting a hearing for revocation of probation pursuant to § 609.14. The order was based upon an affidavit of the assistant county attorney to the effect that defendant had been named as an accomplice…”

State v. Garcia, 683 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 2× “5, which sets out the procedural requirements for executing an adult sentence after a probation violation by an EJJ, did not address the issue of credit for time previously served in a juvenile facility except to the extent that it provided that “the court shall treat the…”

State v. Johnson, 743 N.W.2d 622 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 609.14 , subd. 1(a) (2006).”

Show all 84 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.