Cited by

Before revoking a defendant’s probation, the district court must (1) “designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated,” (2) “find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) “find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

Before a district court may revoke probation, the court 7 must find that: (1) the probationer violated a specific condition of their probation; (2) the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and (3) the “need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980).

“[R]evocation should be used only as a last resort when treatment has failed.”

However, before a district court can revoke probation, “the court must 1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that [the] need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

(directing district courts to make findings regarding three factors (the Austin factors) before revoking probation: (1) the specific condition of probation violated, (2) whether the violation was intentional or inexcusable, and (3) whether the policies favoring probation outweigh the need for conf

“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

The district court “has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

DECISION “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

DECISION I. “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).

Before doing so, the district court must (1) “designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated,” (2) “find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) “find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).

istrict court failed to find “that the policies favoring probation were 5 outweighed by a need for confinement” and because “the record lacks sufficient evidence to support this finding.” “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke proba tion and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).

District courts have “broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

A district court may revoke probation only if the court (1) designates the specific condition that has been violated, (2) finds that the violations were “intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) finds “that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

DECISION “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

A district court may revoke probation only if the court (1) designates the specific condition that has been violated, (2) finds that the violations were “intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) finds “that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION COCHRAN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s order revoking her probation and executing her sentence

2 NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION REILLY, Judge On appeal after re mand in this probation- revocation matter, appellant argues that the district court erred in finding that the need for his confinement outweighed the policies favoring continued probation under State v. Austin , .

“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” - 50 (Minn. 1980).

“A district court has ‘broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.’” (-50 (Minn. 1980)).

“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

But, before revoking probation and executing the underlying sentence, the district court must find that: (1) the probationer violated at least one specific condition of their probation, (2) “the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) the “need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

Before revoking probati on, the district court must “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that [the] need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

The probation contains several conditions, two of which require appellant to follow all state and federal criminal laws, and to contact his probation agent immediately if released from ICE custody in the U.S. or upon 1 .

“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of discretion.” - 50 (Minn. 1980).

DECISION “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” - 50 (Minn. 1980).