Cited by

(“Once a court has made findings that a violation has occurred and has found that the violation was either intentional or inexcusable, the court must proceed to the third Austin factor .

When making the required Austin findings, the court “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.”

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

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 confinement); (remanding to the district court to make findings regarding whether “sufficient evidence exists to support the district court’s [probation] revocation”).

When making the required Austin findings, the court “must seek to convey [its] substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.” State v. Modtland

In making these findings, the district court “must seek to convey [its] substantive reasons for 6 revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

“[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 6 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.”

State v. Modtland , -08 (Minn. 2005).

d Austin factor, a district court should consider 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.” (quoting Austin, d at 251).

These factors require the district courts to “seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon” and “prevents courts from reflexively revoking probation.” d 602, 608 (Minn. 2005).

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

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

These three factors, commonly known as the Austin factors, require district courts to “seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

“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.’” (quoting Austin, d at 249-50).

(quoting Austin, d at 251).

District courts must clearly address the three Austin factors and not merely recite them or give “general, non-specific reasons for revocation.”

Once a district court finds an intentional or inexcusable violation of a specific probationary condition, it must “determine whether the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.”

In revoking probation, courts may not merely recite these three factors—they must “seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

“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)).

8 district court “must seek to convey [its] substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

Under the third 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.” State 4 v. Modtland, (quotation omitted).

Austin Factors “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.’” (quoting Austin, d at 249-50).

In making the three Austin findings, courts should “convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”