Cited by

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

the intervening conduct of the offender,” either 1) that “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offender,” 2) that “the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined,” or 3) that “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” d 602, 607 (Minn. 2005).

The district court must support its conclusion with “thorough, fact -specific records” and “seek to convey [its] 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.” (quotation omitted).

In doing so, “courts must balance the probati oner’s interest in freedom and the state’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and th e public safety, and base their decisions on sound judgment and not just their will.” State v. Modtland , (quotations omitted).

“A district court has broad discretion 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.” (quotation omitted).

When considering the third Austin factor, the district court must “balance the probationer’s interest in freedom and the sta te’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety.” (quotation omitted).

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

(citing Austin, d at 251).

In making the se Austin findings, district courts “must seek to convey their substantive reasons for revocation and the evidence relied upon.” 8 (Minn. 2005).

probation, the district court should consider whether “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the offe nder,” whether “the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined,” or whether “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the vi olation if probation were not revoked.” (quotations omitted).

d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).

d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).

d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005).

at 250; (citing Austin).

In determining whether the need for confinement outweighs the p olicies favoring probation, “district courts must bear in mind that policy consi derations may require that probation not be revoked even tho ugh the facts may allow it and that the purpose of probation is rehabilitation.” State v. Modtland , (quotation omitted).

4 District courts have broad discretion to determine whether there is “sufficient evidence to revoke probation.” (quoting Austin, d at 249-50).

14 State v. Modtland , (quoting Austin, d at 251).

[district] courts must seek to convey their substantive reason s for revocation and the evidence relied upon.” State v. Modtland , .

When analyzing whether the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation, the district court “m ust balance the probationer’s i nterest in freedom and the state’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety.” (qu otation omitted).

State v. Austin , ; (citing Austin).

Before a district court may revoke probation, it must make specific findings on the Austin factors to create a “thorough, fact -specific record[ ] setting forth th[e] reasons for revoking probation.” State v. Modtland

Before a district court may revoke pro bation, it must make specific findings on the Austin factors to ensure the creation of a “thorough, fact-specific record[] setting forth th[e] reasons for revoking probation.” 8 (Minn. 2005).

aily stresses of living free in the community and when not able to handle the stresses he turns to drugs or alcohol.” “When determining if revocation is appropriate, cour ts must ba lance the probationer’s interest in freedom and the state’ s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety, and base their decisions on sound judgment and not just their will.” -07 (Minn. 2005) (quotations omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion when it rests its judgment on clearly erroneous facts, id., or fails to explain its “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.” State v. Modtland , (quoting Austin, d at 249-50).

Based 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 , ().

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.” (quotation omitted).