Cited by

Cerda challenges her probation revocation, arguing that the need for confinement did not outweigh policy considerations favoring her continued probatio n. “The [district] court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke 6 probation,” and we reverse “only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

He challenges the district 2 court’s arguing that (1) the district court relied on unnoticed violations to find that he violated conditions of probation, (2) there was insufficient proof that the violations were intentional or inexcusable, and (3) there was insufficient proof that the need for confinement outweighed the policies fav

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 the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation .”

A district court’s decision to revoke probation and execute a sentence “cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations,” but instead “requires a showing that the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity.” (quotation omitted).

The district court credited the probation officer’ s testimony and concluded that appellant failed to successfully complete the Teen Challenge program: 1 In State v. Austin , , the Minnesota Supreme Court established that, to revoke probation, the district court must address three factors.

To revoke an o ffender’s 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.”

In State v. Austin, the supreme court held that the district court mu st make three findings before revoking probation: “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusabl e; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

Before revoking probation, the distri ct 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 [distr ict] 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.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

To revoke probation in a juvenile delinquency proceeding

Cf. State v. Austin , (stating that the decision to revoke probation “cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical vi olations but requires a showing that the offender’ s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity” (quotations omitted)).

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

To revoke 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.”

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

When 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.” State v. Austin , .

D E C I S I O N Before revoking probation, a district court must “1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation wa s intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

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

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.” 6 -50 (Minn. 1980).

To revoke probation, a district court must identify the specific conditions of probation that were violated, find that those violations were “intentional or inexcusable,” and “find that need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” .

State v. Austin , -250 (M inn.

D E C I S I O N The district court has “broad d iscretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation.”

State v. Austin , ; (citing 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)).

5 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.” -50 (Minn. 1980); (stating that the state must prove a probation violation by clear and convincing evidence).

D E C I S I O N Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and executed his sentence because it failed to offer substantive reasons for the revocation in its findings for the sec ond and third factors

The district court treated the hearing as a probation-revocation hearing and made findings in accordance with State v. Austin , , 250 (Minn. 1980).