Cited by

“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).

It is best practice that a probationer be given “a written copy of the conditions of his probation.”

“The [district] court has broad 6 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 District courts have broad discretion in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and execute a sentence 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 “The trial 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 we reverse “only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

A probationer must be “given written notice of the alleged grounds for revocation,” but the notice need only be “adequate to warn the appellant of the issues that could come up at the hearing.” n.1 (Minn. 1980) .

Before a district court revokes a def endant’s probation, it 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 [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).

To revoke probation, a 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.”

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

7 DECISION Before revoking a criminal defendant’s probation, a

4 D E C I S I O N “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).

“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, 5 -50 (Minn. 1980).

“The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be 5 reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

- 250 (Minn. 1980), were met, revoked appellant’s probation, and executed his presumptive sentence.

Before revoking 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 the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

“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).

Before revoking probation, the district court must undertake a “three -step analysis”—it must (1) “designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated,” (2) “find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) “find tha t need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

Before revoking 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 polici es favoring probation.”

ortant to the district court—the fact that both offenses involved domestic assaults against the very 5 State v. Austin established that “before probation be revoked, 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 need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

“The [district] court has broad discreti on in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reve rsed 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.” State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).

465 U.S. at 438; see State v. Austin , .

A revocation is proper only if a district court (1) designates the specific conditions of probation that have been violated, (2) finds that the violations were “intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) finds “that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

DECISION Before revoking 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.”

2(1)(c), finds that Scaife intentionally or inexcusably violated it, and finds that the “need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

Before revoking 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 the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

erred by revoking her probation because the revocation was based on a single violation—termination from drug court—and the majority of Corbett’s drug-court infractions were “technical.” “The [district] court has br oad 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).

DECISION A district court “has broad discretion in de termining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation.”

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

To revoke probation, a district court must “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that w ere violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

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

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

Before a district court may revoke a defendant’s probation and execute a stayed sentence, “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 revoking 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.”

5 Generally, we review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a petition for postconviction relief, or a probation- revocation decision, State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).