Legal Opinion

State v. Barrientos

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 9, 2012No. A12-150PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.*

Appellant state argues that the district court erred by denying its request to extend respondent’s probationary period up to the statutory maximum for the offense of which she was convicted, after she failed to pay court-ordered restitution. Because the district court is only authorized by statute to extend probation for two one-year periods for failure to pay restitution, we affirm.

FACTS

In 2006, respondent Malena Maria Bar-rientos pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary. She and two others were linked to, but not charged with, several other burglaries in Freeborn…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. MontjoyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  2. State v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  3. State v. BelfryCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  4. State v. BraunSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  5. Freeman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. BarrientosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  2. Pageau v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API