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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0446

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Sean Douglas English,
Appellant.

Filed November 28, 2022
Reversed and remanded
Bjorkman, Judge

Beltrami County District Court
File No. 04-CR-14-1824

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

David Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, Michael V. Mahlen, Assistant County Attorney,
Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Christopher L. Mishek, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Slieter,
Judge.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation and execution of his prison
sentence for impaired driving. Because the district court did not make the required findings
as to whether the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation, we
reverse and remand.
FACTS
In October 2014, appellant Sean Douglas English pleaded guilty to first-degree
driving while impaired. The district court imposed a stayed 48-month prison sentence and
placed English on probation for seven years. Among the probation conditions, the district
court ordered English to follow the terms and conditions set out by his probation agent;
abstain from the use, possession, or purchase of mood-altering substances; submit to
random chemical testing; and remain law-abiding.
In May 2019, English violated his probation for the first time, testing positive for
methamphetamine. English admitted the violation. The district court reinstated his
probation but imposed 15 days in jail as a sanction. The court also ordered English to
complete an updated chemical-dependency assessment and to follow its recommendations.
In February 2021, English violated his probation for the second time. He told his
probation agent that he had “a couple drinks” with an acquaintance who was staying in his
home. English admitted the violation. The district court again reinstated his probation and
ordered him to complete an updated chemical -dependency assessment, continue working
3
with mental-health staff, and inform his agent within 72 hours of any change to his
employment, address, or telephone number.
In October 2021, English violated his probation for the third time. The probation-
violation report alleged that English (1) failed to report to his agent in May, June, July and
September 2021; (2) did not complete a chemical-dependency assessment; (3) violated the
law by driving after revocation of his driver’s license and possessing drug paraphernalia in
North Dakota; and (4) did not timely notify his agent of his arrests.
At his January 2022 probation-violation hearing, English admitted the violations.
He explained that he thought he was “off-paper” and that he had been struggling to get his
mail. The district court rejected his explanations, finding the violations were intentional
and inexcusable. The court also found that English was not amenable to probation, noting
the number and nature of his violations (including new offenses) over the course of his
probation. The court concluded by stating, “Mr. English, if I do not revoke the stay of
execution in this matter, then I feel that I am diminishing the work of probation, the benefits
of probation. And so the reasons of confinement do outweigh those efforts in this matter.”
The district court revoked English’s probation and executed his 48-month prison sentence.
English appeals.
DECISION
A district court may revoke an offender’s probation if it finds that the offender
(1) violated a specific condition or conditions of probation, (2) the violation was intentional
or inexcusable, and (3) the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.
State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980). The Austin framework requires courts
4
to not only recite the three factors but to “seek to convey their substantive reasons for
revocation and the evidence relied on.” State v. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602, 608 (Minn.
2005). “This process prevents courts from reflexively revoking probation when it is
established that a defendant has violated a condition of probation.” Id.
A district court has broad discretion to determine whether to revoke probation.
Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 249-50. But whether the district court made the requisite findings
is a question of law, which we review de novo. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d at 605.
English argues that the district court did not make the required findings on the third
Austin factor—whether the “need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring
probation.” Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 250. This argument has merit. Examination of the
third factor requires the district court to “balance the probationer’s interest in freedom and
the state’s interest in insuring his rehabilitation and the public safety.” Modtland , 695
N.W.2d at 607 (quotation omitted). In doing so, the court must consider whether
(i) confinement is necessary to protect the public from
further criminal activity by the offender; or
(ii) the offender is in need of correctional treatment
which can most effectively be provided if he is confined; or
(iii) it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the
violation if probation were not revoked.

Id. (quoting Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 251). If the district court does not make findings on
any of these three subfactors, we will reverse and remand for further findings. See id.
at 608.
As noted above, the district court made minimal findings regarding the need for
confinement and the policies favoring probation:
5
I am finding that you are not amenable to probation; that
your—I am accepting your admissions here today and also
accepting the fact that those were intentional—and finding that
they are intentional and inexcusable.

. . . .

I am further noticing the length of time this manner has
been—length of time of probation of this case.

Mr. English, if I do not revoke the stay of execution in
this matter, then I feel that I am diminishing the work of
probation, the benefits of probation. And so the reasons of
confinement do outweigh those efforts in this matter.

We conclude that the district court did not make the required findings to support revoking
English’s probation. The district court’s finding that English is “not amenable to
probation” does not explain why the district court made that determination or the evidence
it relied on in doing so. It is the kind of “general, non-specific reasons for revocation” that
our supreme court concluded did not satisfy Austin. Id. The court’s findings do not state
that confinement is necessary to protect the public or to provide correctional treatment.
And even if we construe the district court’s statements about diminishing the work of
probation as a finding regarding the third subfactor—the relative weight of the policies
favoring probation—they do not explain how failing to revoke probation will depreciate
the seriousness of English’s violations. In short, the district court did not make the required
findings on the third Austin factor.
The state contends that we can affirm because the record contain s “substantial
evidence” supporting the revocation of English’s probation. But “it is not the role of
6
appellate courts to scour the record to determine if sufficient evidence exists to support the
district court’s revocation.” Id.
Because the district court did not make adequate findings on the third Austin factor,
we reverse the revocation of English’s probation and remand for further findings based on
the existing record.
Reversed and remanded.