Cited by

(stating that district court may consider defendant’s record in determining the threat to the public and the need for confinement).

A district court may not reflexively revoke probation in response to a series of technical violations, but it may consider whether a defendant has historically been successful on probation in determining whether confinement is appropriate.

We acknowledge that the district court here also referenced Jaeger’s other criminal matters and that a district court considering whether to revoke probation may, in the proper context, consider prior offenses because “determining the threat to the public and the need for confinement will, on occasion, require analysis of a defendant’s [prior] record.” 256 (Minn. 2007); d 92, 95 (Minn. App. 2011) (approving reliance on probationer’s prior criminal record to 8 assess his “need for confinement and

Though a district court may not reflexively revoke probation in response to a series of technical violations, a defendant’s history of probation violations can be relevant to determining whether confinement is appropriate, (concluding that appellant’s multiple probation violations support finding that need for confinement outweighs policies favor

27, 2023); (rejecting argument of defendant convicted of controlled-substance crime that “his personal use of marijuana is a technical violation that [did] not justify revoking his probation)”; -11 (Minn. App. 2020) (failing to timely complete chemical dependency evaluat

See State v. Osborne , (stating that in deciding whether revocation is appropriate, the district court may consider the “original offense and the intervening conduct of the offender”).

6 “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).

And in deciding whether revocation is appropriate, t he district court may consider the “original 8 offense and the intervening conduct of the offender.”

See State v. Osborne , - 56 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking defendant’s probation without giving defendant a chance to seek additional probationary resources).

d 249, 254 (Minn. 2007) (concluding a defendant is entitled to “less judicial forbearance” for “severe” offenses).

(concluding that the district court did not act reflexively where it “took pains to consider all relevant facts and details”).

d 249, 255 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking probation without giving offender an opportunity to seek additional probationary resources).

(emphasis added) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Osborne , -55 (Minn. 2007) (affirming probation revocation due to a “minor” technical violation where the revocation was supported by the record and was not reflexive).

See, -56 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that district court di d not abuse its discretion by revoking 12 probation without allowing defendant to seek additional probationary resources).4 And in this case, appellant had many opportunities for treatment, as discussed above.

(concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the defendant’s probation without giving the defendant an opportunity to seek add itional probationary resources ).

See State v. Osborne , -56 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that district court di d not abuse its discretion by revoking defendant’s probation without allowing defendant to seek more probationary resources).

State v. Osborne , (quoting Austin, d at 251).

255-56 (Minn. 2007) (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the defendant’s probation without giving the defendant an opportunity to seek additional probationary resources, including inpatient treatment).

While it is true that re vocation is generally a last resort, State v. Osborne , the district court only revoked probation after Culberson’s third violation.

(affirming probation revocation when the district court 7 considered the offender’s “ lengthy history of criminal activity and chronic probation and treatment failures”); State v. Rottelo , (affirming probation revocation, noting prior offenses and history o

A district court does not abuse its disc retion in revoking an offender’s probation based upon his “lengthy history of criminal activity and chronic pr obation and treatment failures.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court has concluded that a district court does not abuse its discretion by revoking an offender’s probation based upon his 6 “lengthy history of criminal activity and chronic probation and treatment failures.”

“The decision to revoke probati on cannot be ‘a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violati ons but requires a showing th at the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be c ounted on to avoid antisocial activity.’” (quoting Austin, d at 251).

But we note that the supreme court has concluded that a district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking an offender’s probationary status based on his “lengthy history of criminal activity and chronic probation and treatment failures.”

(affirming probation revocation where the district court’s Austin analysis involved “a full review of [the defendant’s] lengthy history of criminal activity and chronic probation and treatment failures”); (affirming probation revocati

“Before revoking a probationary sentence, a district court must: (1) specifically identify the condition or conditions violated; (2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and (3) find that the policies favoring probation no longer outweigh the need for confinement.” (citing Austin, d at 250).

“Before revoking a probationary sentence, a district court must: (1) specifically identify the condition or conditions violated; (2) find that the 3 violation was intentional or inexcusable; and (3) find that the policies favoring probation no longer outweigh the need for confinement.” (citing Austin, d at 250).

“The decision to revoke probation cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technical violations but requires a showing that the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity.” (quotation omitted).

A. Appellant should therefore be entitled to “less judicial tolerance.” (appellant entitled to less judicial tolerance for a probation revocation of a level nine offense).

“Less judicial forbearance is urged for persons violating conditions of a stayed sentence who were convicted of a more severe offense or who had a longer criminal history.” (quoting Minn. Sent.

(citing ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Sentencing 18-7.3 cmt.

The supreme court has held that in making a revocation decision, “[l]ess judicial forbearance is urged for persons violating conditions of a stayed sentence who were convicted of a more severe offense or who had a longer criminal history.” (quoting Minn. Sent.

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.” (quotation omitted).