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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-1742

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Joshua David Tollefson,
Appellant.

Filed June 15, 2026
Reversed and remanded
Cochran, Judge

Clearwater County District Court
File No. 15-CR-17-397

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

Karin Hughes, Clearwater County Attorney, Bagley, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Gina D. Schulz, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and
Rasmusson, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
COCHRAN, Judge
Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation and execution of his stayed
prison sentence, arguing that the district court lacked authority to revoke his probation in
2025 because his probation automatically expired on October 1, 2023. Appellant
2
alternatively argues that the district court deprived him of due process during the probation-
revocation hearing and failed to make the required particularized findings in support of
revocation. We conclude that the district court lacked authority to revoke appellant’s
probation because his probationary period expired on October 1, 2023, as a result of the
enactment of a 2023 session law. We therefore reverse and remand.
FACTS
After a traffic accident in October 2017, respondent State of Minnesota charged
appellant Joshua David Tollefson by amended complaint with, among other offenses,
first-degree impaired driving. A month later, Tollefson pleaded guilty to first-degree
impaired driving, a felony, and the state agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. Tollefson
provided a factual basis for his plea and testified that he had been driving while intoxicated.
The district court accepted Tollefson’s plea and convicted him of first-degree driving while
impaired. Consistent with the plea agreement, the district court dismissed the remaining
charges, sentenced Tollefson to 42 months’ imprisonment, stayed execution of the prison
sentence for seven years, and imposed 120 days of jail time with credit for 24 days. The
district court also imposed several probationary conditions and ordered Tollefson to pay
restitution for damages caused as a result of the accident.
Between 2018 and 2020, the state filed four probation-violation reports alleging that
Tollefson had violated the terms of his probation. Tollefson admitted to each of these
violations. In each instance, the district court imposed a jail sanction and reinstated
Tollefson on probation.
3
In May 2023, the legislature passed —and the governor signed—a law capping
probationary terms for felony offenses at five years. 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 6, § 13,
subd. 2, at 110. The law became effective on August 1, 2023, and included language
making the five-year cap retroactive subject to limited exceptions. 2023 Minn. Laws ch.
52, art. 6, § 14, at 111 .
On August 17, 2023, probation filed a progress report. The report stated:
Due to new legislation, the maximum probation terms
set in Minnesota Statute 609.135 have been modified, and the
law is retroactive. Exceptions remain where the defendant has
not paid court-ordered restitution. The change is time sensitive
and cases will have to be reviewed by the court by October 1,
2023. Due to the subject having outstanding restitution, it is
respectfully recommended [Tollefson’s] probation be
extended for a period of 1 year with a new expiration date set
for 8/17/2024. It should be noted a payment contract was
signed by the subject on July 28, 2023, however, will need to
be modified in order for the entirety of restitution to be paid
within 1 year.

The report did not allege that Tollefson committed any new probation violations.
In response to this report, the district court ordered Tollefson to appear at a hearing
on September 21, 2023. Tollefson failed to appear at the hearing and the district court
issued a warrant for his arrest. The arrest warrant stated that Tollefson failed to appear for
a court hearing but did not indicate that the district court was seeking to revoke his
probation on the basis of his failure to appear.
Tollefson was taken into custody on October 1, 2023—the deadline established by
the new legislation to extend Tollefson’s probation. See 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 6,
§ 14 (d), at 111. The district court held a hearing the following day, October 2, at which
4
the state recommended that the court extend Tollefson’s probation for one year based on
the outstanding requirement to pay restitution. The district court continued the hearing for
two days to allow Tollefson to speak with probation. On October 4, Tollefson appeared
without counsel and agreed with the state’s recommendation to extend his probation for
one year. Following the hearing, the district court amended the warrant of commitment to
reflect that Tollefson’s probation was extended one year to October 4, 2024.
In January 2024, probation filed its fifth probation-violation report alleging that
Tollefson was in violation of his probation for failing to fully pay the court-ordered
restitution and for failing to meet with his probation officer as scheduled. Probation later
filed an addendum asserting two additional probation violations. The probation agent
urged the district court to execute Tollefson’s 42-month prison sentence. Tollefson
appeared with counsel for a hearing in July 2025, at which he admitted to the probation
violations set forth in the fifth probation-violation report and the addendum. The district
court accepted his admissions and executed his 42-month prison sentence.
Tollefson appeals.
1
DECISION
Tollefson argues that the district court lacked statutory authority to revoke his
probation and execute his sentence in July 2025 because his stay of execution expired by
operation of law on October 1, 2023, as a result of the 2023 legislation. Tollefson also
raises two alternative arguments, asserting that: (1) the district court violated his

1 The state did not file a brief in this appeal and we ordered that the appeal proceed under
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03.
5
due-process rights by not obtaining a valid waiver of counsel at the October 4, 2023
hearing, and (2) the district court failed to make the required particularized findings before
revoking his probation in 2025. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that
Tollefson’s probation automatically expired by operation of law and therefore the district
court erred by revoking his probation and executing his sentence in 2025. Because this
issue is dispositive, we need not reach his alternative arguments.
A district court may revoke a stay of execution upon a determination that a
defendant violated the conditions of probation. Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 1(a) (2024).
Additionally, probation-revocation proceedings may be initiated within six months after a
stay expires, if the violation occurred during the stay. Id., subd. 1(b) (2024). However,
once a defendant’s sentence has expired, the court “has no authority to amend or modify
the sentence to impose further sanctions.” State v. Hannam, 792 N.W.2d 862, 865 (Minn.
App. 2011). Resolving whether the district court’s extension of Tollefson’s probation was
authorized by law requires us to engage in statutory interpretation, which presents a
question of law that we review de novo. State v. Colvin, 645 N.W.2d 449, 452
(Minn. 2002).
The goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the
legislature. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2024). In doing so, appellate courts “must first determine
whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.” Fordyce v. State, 994 N.W.2d 893, 897
(Minn. 2023) (quotation omitted). “If the language of a statute is clear on its face, then
the statute is unambiguous, and we apply its plain meaning.” State v. Plancarte,
20 N.W.3d 30, 37 (Minn. 2025). “The language of a statute is unambiguous when there is
6
only one reasonable way to read the text.” Nash v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 4 N.W.3d 812,
816 (Minn. 2024) (quotation omitted). We also “read and construe the statute as a whole,
and we must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections, so as to give effect
to all of the provisions.” State v. Barrientos, 837 N.W.2d 294, 300 (Minn. 2013).
Here, we are tasked with interpreting Minnesota Statutes section 609.135 (2022),
which governs extensions of probation, and the 2023 session law amending that section.
Prior to August 1, 2023, if an individual was convicted of a felony and placed on probation,
the length of a stay of execution was authorized to “be for not more than four years or the
maximum period for which the sentence of imprisonment might have been imposed,
whichever is longer.” See Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2(a) (emphasis added). The
legislature amended the statute in 2023 to provide that, except in certain situations not
present here, “if the conviction is for a felony, the stay shall be for not more than five years
or the maximum period for which the sentence of imprisonment might have been imposed,
whichever is less.” Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2(a) (Supp. 2023) (emphasis added); see
also 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 6, § 13, at 110. In other words, the 2023 law imposes a
five-year cap on probationary terms for felony sentences.
The legislature also made the five- year cap on probationary terms retroactive.
2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 6, § 14, at 111. The 2023 law specifies that individuals placed
on probation prior to August 1, 2023, are eligible for resentencing and that resentencing
may occur without a hearing. Id., § 14(a)-(c), at 111. The amended legislation further
provides that, “The term of the stay of probation for any person who is eligible for
resentencing . . . and who has served five or more years of probation for a felony
7
violation . . . as of August 1, 2023, shall be considered to have expired on October 1,
2023.” Id., § 14(d), at 111 (emphasis added). The law includes two exceptions that allow
for a limited extension of probation beyond the October 1, 2023, expiration date. Id.
Relevant to this appeal, one exception applies when a defendant has not paid court-ordered
restitution. Id., § 14(d)(2), at 111. But that exception requires the district court to extend
probation in accordance with section 609.135, subdivision 2(h), prior to October 1, 2023.2
Id., § 14(d), at 111; Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subds. 1a, 2(h).
Under subdivision 2(h) of section 609.135, a court may extend probation for up to
one year if the court finds that: “(1) the defendant has not paid court-ordered restitution in
accordance with the payment schedule or structure; and (2) the defendant is likely to not
pay the restitution the defendant owes before the term of probation expires.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.135, subd. 2(h). But to extend probation under subdivision 2(h), the district court
must hold a hearing in accordance with subdivision 1a of section 609.135. Id. Under
subdivision 1a, the district court “shall . . . hold this hearing and take appropriate
action . . . before the defendant’s term of probation expires.” Minn. Stat. § 609.135,
subd. 1(a) (emphasis added); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 16 (2024) (“‘Shall’ is
mandatory.”). Consequently, under the plain language of section 609.135,
subdivision 2(h), if a district court seeks to extend a defendant’s term of probation for

2 The other exception provides for a limited extension if the defendant had not completed
court-ordered treatment. Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 6, § 14(d)(2), at 111. This exception was
not at issue in 2023 when probation alerted the court to the law change.
8
failing to pay court-ordered restitution, it must do so before the probationary term expires.
Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subds. 1a, 2(h).
Tollefson argues that the district court did not comply with the procedures set forth
in section 609.135, subdivisions 1a and 2(h), because it did not hold a hearing on extension
of his probation for failure to pay restitution before his stay expired and therefore lacked
authority to extend his probation on October 4, 2023. See Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 6,
§ 14(d), at 111. We agree.
Here, the record shows that the district court did not extend Tollefson’s probation
in accordance with section 609.135, subdivisions 1a and 2(h), before his probation expired
on October 1, 2023, under the 2023 session law. We reach this conclusion for the following
reasons. First, the record shows that the five-year cap under the 2023 law applies to
Tollefson because Tollefson was originally sentenced to a seven-year probationary term in
2017 for a felony offense. Id., § 14(b), at 111. Second, when the 2023 law took effect,
Tollefson had already served more than five years of probation. Consequently, under the
2023 law, Tollefson’s stay “expired on October 1, 2023” unless the length of his probation
was extended under subdivision 2(h) prior to that date. Id., § 14(d)(2), at 111. Third, the
record reflects that the district court did not hold a hearing on the state’s request to extend
Tollefson’s probation for nonpayment of restitution until October 4, 2023. And, the district
court did not extend Tollefson’s probation until that same date, which was after the
expiration of his stay on October 1, 2023.
We acknowledge that Tollefson failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on
September 21 and was not taken into custody until October 1, 2023, and we are mindful
9
that a defendant should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of a plea “by simply
staying away or hiding.” State v. Redford, 986 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Minn. App. 2023). Yet
the plain language of section 609.135 does not contain any exceptions to the October 1,
2023 expiration date based on a defendant’s failure to appear. See State v. Hoskins,
943 N.W.2d 203, 212 (Minn. App. 2020) (“We cannot add words to a statute that the
legislature omitted.”). We also note that the district court did not initiate probation-
revocation proceedings based on Tollefson’s failure to appear at the September 21 hearing.
And the existence of the arrest warrant issued after Tollefson’s failure to appear did not,
on its own, prevent the expiration of his probationary term on October 1, 2023. Therefore,
Tollefson’s stay expired on October 1, 2023, by operation of law, and the district court’s
extension of the stay under section 609.135, subdivision 2(h), on October 4, 2023, was
ineffective.
In addition, on October 4, 2023, the district court did not pursue another procedural
avenue that was still available on October 4—initiation of probation-revocation
proceedings for failing to appear at the September 21 court hearing and failing to pay
court-ordered restitution, both of which occurred before the stay expired on October 1.
Under Minnesota Statutes section 609.14 (2024), a district court can initiate a probation-
revocation proceeding even after a stay expires based on alleged probation violations that
occurred while the stay was still in effect so long as the proceeding is commenced within
6 months of expiration of the stay. See Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 1(b) (noting that,
“[w]hen it appears that the defendant violated any of the conditions of probation during the
term of the stay, but the term of the stay has since expired,” the court may “initiate
10
probation revocation proceedings under the Rules of Criminal Procedure at any time within
six months after the expiration of the stay”). To initiate such revocation proceedings, the
district court must “issue an order revoking the stay of execution” of sentence and “direct
that the defendant be taken into immediate custody.” Redford, 986 N.W.2d at 261-62
(“The district court’s authority to revoke a stayed sentence is governed by Minn. Stat.
§ 609.14, subd. 1.”). And a district court can initiate probation-revocation proceedings
“outside the defendant’s presence.” Id. at 263. But where the district court does not
comply with these requirements, it loses statutory authority to conduct a revocation
hearing. Id. Here, the district court could have initiated revocation proceedings within six
months after Tollefson’s stay expired on October 1, 2023, but the district court did not do
so.
In sum, we conclude that the district court did not have authority to extend
Tollefson’s probation after his stay expired on October 1, 2023, by operation of law.
Because Tollefson’s probation was not extended before that date, the district court’s
extension of his probation on October 4, 2023 , was invalid and the district court erred by
revoking his probation in 2025 after the stay expired. See Hannam, 792 N.W.2d at 865
(noting that if an alleged probation violation occurs after probation ends, the district court
lacks the authority to revoke probation).
Reversed and remanded.