State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1454

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Donald Eugene Scaife,
Appellant.

Filed July 12, 2021
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-18-7374

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Jonathan P. Schmidt, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Frisch,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Donald Scaife was under probation for ineli gibly possessing a firearm when he
refused to cooperate with drug-addiction treatment, failed numerous drug tests, and drove
under the influence of methamphetamine and PCP. He appeals from the district court’s
2
order revoking his probation. Because the district court acted within its discretion when it
concluded that Scaife’s need for confinement outweighs the benefits of probation, we
affirm.
FACTS
The district court convicted Donald Scaife of ineligibly possessing a firearm in
July 2018 and stayed his 60-month sentence conditioned on probationary terms. The
conditions included, among other things, remaining law-abiding, abstaining from
nonprescribed, mood-altering drugs, and complying with drug testing and drug-addiction
treatment.
Over the next two years, Scaife failed to remain chemical free, violating the
conditions of his probation in various ways and on many occasions. For example, in March
2019, he failed to complete his Park Avenue drug-addiction treatment, tested positive
11 times for methamphetamine and PCP, was arrested for fifth-degree drug possession,
and was charged with gross-misdemeanor third-degree impaired driving. During his
incarceration for that conduct, he completed two treatment programs by doing only “what
was minimally possible.” Then four months after being released from jail in February 2020,
Scaife again faced an im paired-driving charge when he refused to submit to a chemical
test. The district court released him from jail again in June 2020 on the condition that he
submit to weekly drug tests. Scaife tested positive for methamphetamine and PCP six times
between July and August 2020 and missed two tests during that period He was referred for
inpatient chemical-dependency treatment to begin August 10, 2020, but on August 9 police
3
arrested him for obstruction when he walked away from police investigating an auto theft,
and they found on his person a glass methamphetamine pipe.
The district court held a probation-revocation hearing in September 2020. Police
officers testified about his criminal conduct, including the incidents just described and a
hit-and-run collision allegedly involving Scaife while he was intoxicated. His probation
officer testified that she found him extremely resistant to treatment and not amenable to
continued probation. The district court revoked Scaife’s probation and executed his prison
sentence, finding that his probation-violating conduct was intentional and inexcusable, that
he would most effectively receive treatment while incarcerated, and that the need for his
confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.
DECISION
Scaife argues that the district court improperly revoked his probation. Probation
revocation is proper if the district court identifies clear and convincing evidence
establishing a probation-condition violation, Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04, subd. 2(1)(c), finds
that Scaife intentionally or inexcusably violated it, and finds that the “need for confinement
outweighs the policies favoring probation.” State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn.
1980). We review the district court’s probation-revocation decision for an abuse of
discretion. Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 249–50. For the following reasons, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Scaife’s probation.
The record of Scaife’s abundant, continuous drug- or alcohol-fueled criminal
behavior while on probation readily supports the district court’s finding that he
intentionally or inexcusably violated his probation conditions and that he needed
4
confinement to receive successful chemical -addiction treatment. When a probationary
defendant or parolee “has been offered treatment but has failed to take advantage of the
opportunity or to show a commitment to rehabilitation,” the district court reasonably
concludes that treatment failed. Id. at 251. We are unmoved by Scaife’s contention that his
being foreclosed from attending the scheduled treatment in August 2020 undermines the
district court’s finding that his treatment failed. That circumstance argues instead for his
incarceration. The reason Scaife could not attend this treatment is that he engaged in
criminal conduct, causing his arrest, the day before he was set to begin the program. That
he continued to use drugs and engage in drug-related criminal conduct even after he
completed two treatment programs provided ample evidence for the district court to
conclude that his alleged success in the programs was not sustained . Within the supreme
court’s statement that probation revocation is “a last resort when treatment has failed,” id.
at 250, the district court acted well within its discretion by revoking probation under these
circumstances.
Affirmed.