Cited by

3 rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

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 treatment”), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 20

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 favoring probation), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

(emphasis added) (quotation omitted); (addressing and rejecting the “often-heard argument that [the appellant] committed no new crimes while he was on probation” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

See, e.g., State v. Rottelo , (addressing and rejecting the “often heard argument that [the appellant] committed no new crimes while he was on probation” (quotation omitted)), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011) 8 (affirming probation revocation for a single failure to remain in contact because the defendant could not demonstrate compliance).

(rejecting the argument that the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation even though appellant had not been charged with new crimes), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

See, (addressing and rejecting the “often-heard argument that [appellant] ‘committed no new crimes’ while he was on probation”), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

–95 (Minn. App. 2011) (affirming probation-revocation order based on probationer’s failing to maintain contact), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

(a ffirming probation revocation despite the appellant’s assertion that he committed no new crimes while on probation), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

See State v. Rottelo , (holding that several years of failure to maintain contact with probation justified revocation, but distinguishing a hypothetical single missed mee ting with a probation officer), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

(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 of prob ation noncompliance), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

“When determining if revocation is appropriate, courts must balance the probationer’s interest in freedom and the stat e’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety, and base their decisions on sound judgment and not just their will.” State v. Rottelo , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

“When determining if revocation is appropriate, courts must balance the probationer’s interest in freedom and the state’s interest i n insuring his rehabilitation and 5 the public safety, and base their decisions on sound judgment and not just their will.” State v. Rottelo , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

at 606–07 (quotations omitted); (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked probation because Rottelo did not remain in contact with probation officers, had multiple offenses in his history, and showed a pattern of noncompliance with probation), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

(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 revocation and noting prior offenses and history of probation noncompliance), review denied (Minn. Jul.

(stating that “[t]he district court made the appropriate [Austin] findings” where district court found on the third Austin factor that “confinement is necessary, because not to execute the sentence would unduly depreciate 7 the seriousness of t

(holding probation revocation was justified for failing to maintain contact with probation officers).

(holding that “appellant’s criminal record supports rather than refutes his need for confinement and treatment”).

“A district court has broad discretion to determine if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and will be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” (-50 (Minn. 1980)), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).