State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-2060

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Johnathan Phillip Block,
Appellant.

Filed July 24, 2017
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Isanti County District Court
File No. 30-CR-15-14

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Jeffrey Edblad, Isanti County Attorney, Cambridge, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and
Connolly, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Appellant argues that, because the state failed to establish that the need for
confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation, the district court abused its
discretion by revoking his probation. We affirm.

2
FACTS
In January 2015, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Johnathan Phillip
Block with three counts of third-degree crimin al sexual conduct. The complaint alleged
that Block violated Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(b) (2014), by having sexual intercourse
with a minor female on three occasions in 2014. Block pleaded guilty to one count of third-
degree criminal sexual conduct, and the two additional counts were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Block to a stayed 36-month sentence and placed him on probation for 15
years. Block’s probation conditions included the following: (1) complete the Teen
Challenge chemical-dependency program; (2) do not use any controlled substances; (3) do
not possess or use pornographi c or sexually explicit materia l; (4) do not use the internet
without prior approval from his probation agent; (5) do not have contact with persons under
age 18 without prior approval from his ther apist or probation agent; and (6) maintain
contact with his probation agent.
In December 2015, Block’s probation agen t filed a probation-violation report,
which alleged that Block left Teen Challeng e prior to completing the program and failed
to maintain contact with his probation agent. After Block was arrested in March 2016, the
probation-violation report was amended to a llege that Block had further violated the
conditions of his probation by using a controlled substa nce, posting a picture from a
pornographic website on his F acebook page, accessing his Fa cebook page without prior
approval, and having a relationship with a 17-year-old female.
Block remained in jail until his probatio n-revocation hearing in September 2016.
At this uncontested hearing, Block admitted to all of the alleged violations except for

3
failure to maintain contact with his probation agent, which the state dismissed. The district
court revoked Block’s probation and executed his 36-month prison sentence after finding
that Block had intentionally and inexcusably violated the conditions of his probation, that
Block was a public-safety risk, and that “placing [Block] back on probation would unduly
depreciate the seriousness of the violations.” The district court gave the following
explanation for its decision:
Mr. Block, if all we were dea ling with today is walking away
from Teen Challenge, it would be very easy for me. The
concern I have, to be very honest with you, is you are on
probation for a criminal sexual conduct charge and you post
porn on your Facebook site, and you are having a relationship
with somebody that’s under 18.

Block appeals. 1
D E C I S I O N
Block argues that, because the state failed to establish that the need for confinement
outweighed the policies favoring probation, th e district court abused its discretion by
revoking his probation. Specifically, Block challenges the district court’s findings that his
behavior created a public-safety risk and that reinstating probation would unduly depreciate
the seriousness of his violations.
“The [district] court has broad discreti on 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.” State v. Austin , 295 N.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Min n. 1980). When an offender

1 Because the state did not file a responsive brief, we decide this appeal on the merits under
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03.

4
violates a condition of probation, the district court may re voke probation and execute the
previously stayed sentence. Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 3 (201 4). Before revoking
probation and executing the stayed sentence, th e district 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 need for confinement outweighs the policies
favoring probation.” Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 250. “The d ecision to revoke cannot be a
reflexive reaction to an accumulation of techni cal violations but re quires a showing that
the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial
activity.” Id. at 251 (quotations omitted).
Block only challenges the district court’s finding under the third Austin factor,
which requires the court to balance an offender’s interest in remaining at liberty against the
state’s interest in rehabilitation and public safety. Id. at 250. This factor is satisfied if the
district court finds that (1) “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further
criminal activity by the offender,” (2) “the offender is in need of correctional treatment
which can most effectively be provided if he is confined,” or (3) “it would unduly
depreciate the seriousness of the violatio n if probation were not revoked.” Id. at 251
(quotation omitted).
Here, Block admitted to, and does not refu te on appeal, five pr obation violations.
Although the district court’s probation-revoc ation decision cannot be based on an
accumulation of technical viol ations, Block’s adm itted violations include posts on his
Facebook page involving pornography and his relationship with a 17-year-old female. As
the district court explained, these actions ar e concerning because they violated probation

5
conditions that were directed at correcting his criminal sexual behavior. In light of these
violations, the district court reasonably found that Block was a public-safety risk and that
placing him back on probation would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violations.
Moreover, the district court provided contex t for its findings by noting the connection
between Block’s multiple violations and his original criminal-sexua l-conduct offense.
Contrary to Block’s argument, the district court’s findings under the third Austin factor are
not conclusory or rote. Accord ingly, the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion
by revoking Block’s probation.
Affirmed.