Cited by

(articulating subfactors relevant to the third Austin factor).

“But [appellate courts] review de novo whether the district court made the required findings to revoke probation.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

(quotation omitted) (Modtland subfactors).

-07 (Minn. 2005) (the Modtland subfactors).

istrict court considers three “Modtland subfactors”: whether (1) “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender”; (2) “the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined”; or (3) “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” d 602, 607 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

s favoring probation, a district court considers whether “(i) confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender; or (ii) the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined; or (iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.”

“[C]ourts should not assume that they have satisfied Austin by reciting the three factors and offering general, non-specific reasons for revocation, as it is not the role of appellate courts to scour the record to determine if sufficient evidence exists to support the district court’s revocation.”

But whether the district court has made the required findings under Austin to revoke probation “presents a question of law, which is subject to de novo review.”

district court considers subfactors, including whether “(i) confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender; or (ii) the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined; or (iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation 5 were not revoked.”

If the court concludes that “the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation,” revokes probation, and executes the probationer’s previously stayed sentence, then the district court “must pronounce credit for prior 8 imprisonment” and reduce the defendant’s sentence by that amount of credit.

ing probation,” id., a district court considers whether “(i) confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender; or (ii) the 5 offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined; or (iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” -07 (Minn. 2005).

A district court “must make specific findings on all three Austin factors before revoking probation,” and should “not assume that [it has] satisfied Austin by reciting the three factors and offering general, non-specific reasons for revocation, ”

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.”

relevant when applying the third Austin factor: whether “(i) confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender; or (ii) the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively 5 be provided if he is confined; or (iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” -07 (Minn. 2005).

A district court should not merely recite the three Austin factors and offer “general, non-specific reasons for revocation, as it is not the role of appellate courts to scour the record to determine if sufficient evidence exists to support the district court’s revocation.”

tor, a district court may consider three subfactors: (1) whether “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity”; (2) whether “the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined”; or (3) whether “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.”

Counsel asked the district court to consider that Perry’s unsuccessful discharge from treatment did not 1

“[I]n making the three Austin findings, courts are not charged with merely conforming to procedural requirements; rather, courts must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

In making these findings, district courts “must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

at 250; (referring to these findings as the “ Austin factors”).

(quoting Austin, d at 250).

When analyzing this factor, the district court “must balance the probationer’s interest in freedom and the state’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety.” -07 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

When applying these Austin factors, courts “must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

In making these findings, the district court “must seek to convey [its] substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

court considers the three subfactors identified in State v. Modtland—whether (1) “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender;” (2) “the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively 8 be provided if he is confined; or” (3) “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” (quotation omitted).

“[I]n making the three Austin findings, courts are not charged with merely conforming to procedural requirements; rather, courts must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence 5 relied upon.”