Cited by

The Austin framework requires courts 4 to not only recite the three factors but to “seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied on.”

In making these findings, district courts “must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.” State v. 7 Modtland

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

n.3 (Minn. 2005) (“[T]he Court may, in light of the nature of the probation violation, alter the terms of the defendant’s probation—including imposition of intermediate sanctions .

In making these findings, “courts must seek 5 to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.”

(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.”

6 “whether a lower court has made the findings required under Austin.”

A district court must meaningfully address the three Austin factors and not merely recite them or give “general, non-specific reasons for revocation.”

at 251; d 602, 607 (Minn. 2005).

sentence should occur only if the court finds that “(1) confinement is necessary to protect the public from the offender’s further criminal activity, (2) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be most effectively provided if he is confined, or (3) not revoking probation and executing the sentence would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the offense.”

d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).

DECISION I. Appellant challenges the district court’s order revoking his probation

“A district court has broad discretion in de termining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that “it is not the role of appellate courts to scour the record to determine if sufficient evidence exists to support the district court’s” exercise of its discretion); (observing that sufficiently detailed findings of fact assist appellate

State v. Modtland , (Mi nn.

” State v. Modtland , (quotation omitted).

at 250; (explaining that the dist rict court must make specific findings on all three Austin factors to revoke probation).

at 250; (explaining that the district court must make specific findings on all three Austin factors to revoke probation).

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.”

State v. Modtland , d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).

e state must esta blish one of the following subfactors: (1) “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender”; (2) “the offender is in need of co rrectional 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).

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

The district court cannot merely “recit[e] the three [Austin] factors and offer[] general, non- specific reasons for revocation.”