Tag Archives: Urban Myth

Time Spent in Jail While on Probation: Urban Myth – The 12 Month Limit. (26-08)

SUBJECT: Training Update: The 12-Month Probationary Jail Urban Myth.

Dear Colleagues:

An urban myth has developed in Minnesota criminal practice regarding the amount of local jail time a district court may impose while a defendant is on probation.

The common misconception is that once a defendant has served a cumulative total of 12 months in jail as a condition of probation, the court has no authority to impose any additional jail time following a probation violation. Under this mistaken view, the court must execute the stayed prison sentence if further incarceration is warranted.

But the 12-month probationary jail rule does not operate that way.

This new Judicial Training Update is designed to clarify the urban myth, explain the important distinction between a per-sanction limit and a cumulative cap, and summarize the Minnesota appellate decisions that govern the issue.

This update can be read in approximately 5 to 10 minutes. As always, I hope you find this both helpful in your practice and useful in the courtroom. If it resonates with you, please feel free to share it with colleagues who may find it helpful.

The link to the update is attached below.

👉 Click here for a print-ready copy of Training Update 26-08

👉Click here to access Update 26-08 on the Minnesota Judicial Training and Education Website


Warm regards,

Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former District Court Judge

TIME SPENT IN JAIL WHILE ON PROBATION: Urban Myth – The 12 Month Limit (15-18)

local jails
2015 calendar

URBAN MYTH – Many years ago, an entire generation of judges and attorneys were taught that Minnesota law (MS 609.135, subd 4) established a 12 month cap on the total amount of local jail that a defendant could be required to serve (whether as a condition of probation or as a sanction for violating probation), and that any incarceration in excess of 12 months would require execution of the stayed sentence = prison.

This update is designed to dispel that myth and provide the bench and bar with a simple explanation and general rule along with supporting authority.

TO READ THE FULL UPDATE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK: 

PendletonUpdate 15-18

OFP ADVISORY TO RESPONDENTS – ANOTHER URBAN MYTH (14-13)

domestic.violenceQUESTION: It is a well-known legal axiom that an out-of-court statement made by a party-opponent is admissible against that party as non-hearsay in any subsequent legal proceeding. Mn Rule Evid 801D(2). During a contested OFP hearing, if the respondent chooses to testify despite the fact he has a pending domestic assault charge, should the judge, and/or respondent’s attorney, advise respondent that his testimony could be used against him in his subsequent criminal trial?

ANSWER: NODespite the above noted legal axiom, a respondent’s OFP testimony CANNOT be used against him in his subsequent criminal trial. Minnesota law clearly states: “Any testimony offered by a respondent in a hearing pursuant to this section (Domestic Abuse Act) is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding.” MS 518B.01, subd 15.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE

PendletonUpdate14-13

CONCILIATON COURT – PROOF OF SERVICE – URBAN MYTH (14-12)

certified mail recieptCERTIFIED MAIL: Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 508(d)(1) provides that a Conciliation Court summons in excess of $2500 is to be served on the defendant “by certified mail, and proof of service must be filed with the [court] administrator.”

PROOF OF SERVICE – URBAN MYTH: Many years ago an entire generation of judges and court administrators were taught that in order for a party to establish proof of service in conciliation court cases, the serving party was required to file an affidavit of service by certified mail with the post office “return receipt” attached. (i.e. the green colored return receipt) confirming that the certified mail statement of claim and summons had been claimed. THAT IS A MYTH. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE GREEN RETURN RECEIPT MUST BE FILED.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ MORE 

PendletonUpdate14-12