State ex rel. Fox v. Young
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2015, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Schwartz (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)
- State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Brian Keith Schnagl, a/k/a Brian Keith Schnagel, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. (Minn. 2015)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from a district court denial of habeas corpus relief in a proceeding instituted by petitioner to challenge revocation of his parole. We affirm.
Petitioner had his parole revoked by the Adult Corrections Commission upon his being arrested and criminally charged with petty theft and the possession of narcotic drugs, such offenses allegedly committed during his parole. Prior to revocation, a parole agent also reported to the commission that, at the time of his arrest, petitioner was in possession of a loaded .38-caliber revolver in violation of a parole agreement executed by petitioner when paroled which specifically prohibited the purchase, acquistion, or possession of any type of firearm.
Petitioner’s sole claim, which he chose to present pro se to the district court, is that the commission abused its discretionary authority embodied in Minn. St. 1969, §§ 243.05 and 243.12, by revoking parole even though the criminal charges were not prosecuted and even though there existed reasonable doubt that he was in possession of the revolver when arrested. Since the record establishes that (1) the commission based its revocation in part on the parole agent’s report that petitioner possessed the firearm, which petitioner did not deny before the commission; and (2) an independent finding by the district court upon the unrefuted testimony of the arresting officer that defendant did in fact have in his possession the prohibited weapon, we are compelled to affirm the conclusion of the district court that petitioner’s revocation of parole by the Adult Corrections Commission was a lawful exercise of its discretionary authority.
No issues challenging the revocation procedures employed by the commission are raised or decided by this appeal.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.