Cited by

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N REYES, Judge On appeal from the district court’s order revoking probation and executing sentence, appellant argues that the district court: (1) abused its discretion by revoking his probation without making findings pursuant to State v. Austin , 2 (2) extended his probationary period past the five-year statutory maximum; and (3) abused its discretion in sentencing him to a double-upward durational departure on his third count of possession of child pornography

sed on the evidence and admissions in the record, the district court must: (1) “designate the specific condition or conditions ” that were violated , (2) “find the violation was inexcusable or intentional,” and (3) determine that “the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” State v. Modtland , ().

2(1)(c)b. 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.” 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).

D E C I S I O N The district court “has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation.” -50 (Minn. 1980).

Before revoking probation and executin g the 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; a nd (3) find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

ed to attend the aftercare program, but was discharged because 1 Prior to 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 outwe ighs the policies favoring probation.”

See State v. Modtland , State v. Austin

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

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from his sentence following a probation violation, appellant argues that the district court (1) erred by failing to apply the analysis set forth in State v. Austin, 2 before revoking a stay of adjudication and imposing a stay of imposition and (2) incorrectly calculated his jail credit.

-50 (Minn. 1980) (probation revocation); Lussier v. State , (quotation omitted) (postconviction).

4 A district court is not required to follo w 1 when revoking probation in a juvenile- delinquency proceeding.

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).

D E C I S I O N Before a district court revokes a defendant’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 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.” State v. Austin , -50 (Min n. 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.” State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).

Despite the lengthy colloquy between Beaulieu and the district court, and states that “probation reflexively sought revocation.

Before revoking an offender’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.”

“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).

State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1 980).

Prior to revoking probation, a district court must (1) “designate the specific condition or co nditions 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, 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.”

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) “designate[s] the specific condition” of probation that has been violated, (2) “find[s] that the violation was intentional or inexcusable,” and (3) finds that the “need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.” d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980)

3 DECISION “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 viewed the December 2015 hearing as a probation revocation, rather than an initial sentencing

DECISION Before revoking probation, a district court must conduct a three-step analysis: “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.”

DECISION “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)).

UNPUBLISHED OPINION BJORKMAN, Judge Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that this court should adopt a for probationers whose sentences include a lifetime conditional-release term.