State v. JohnsonState v. Johnson
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hudson
OPINION
HUDSON, Judge.
In this appeal from an order revoking probation imposed for appellant’s 2001 conviction of first-degree assault, appellant argues that the district court erred in revoking his probation because thе district court based its decision on its belief that
FACTS
On May 4, 2001, appellant was arrested in Carver County, Minnesota, after being involved in an assault of a middle-аged man. The victim was transported to a hospital with serious, life-threatening head injuries. On September 11, 2001, Carver County charged appellant with aiding and abetting first-degree assault in violation of
Appellant pleаded guilty to the charge and the district court imposed a 98-month prison sentence, stayed for a period of ten years, and set conditions of probation which included serving nine months in the Carver County jail, paying approximately $12,500 in restitution, abstaining from the use of alcohol or non-prescription drugs, submitting to random testing, and remaining law abiding.
In May 2004, the Department of Corrections (DOC) filed a probation-violation report alleging thаt appellant had tested positive for the use of marijuana and cocaine.
In July 2005, the DOC filed another probation-violation report alleging that appellant had failed to pay restitution and had failed to report to jail as ordered. As a result, the district cоurt revoked appellant’s probation and issued an order for his arrest. The district court reinstated appellant’s probation in August 2005 and ordered him to serve nine months in the Carver County jail. But after appellant fаiled to report to jail as ordered, the district court again revoked appellant’s probation and issued a warrant for appellant’s arrest. In December 2006, the DOC filed another probation-violation report because appellant had failed to report to jail as ordered.
In May 2006, appellant appeared before the district court for a hearing on his probation violations. At the hearing, the district court indicated that it had considered imposing additional time in the county jail as a consequence of his probation violations, but at the conclusion of the hearing, the district court stated that
thе Court has no other sanction left available to make you comply in the future with the Court orders. You’ve been here three times now in violations and you continue to intentionally violate the Court orders ... commitment to the Commissioner would be the least restrictive alternative that I have available to me.
The district court then took the matter under advisement “with the intent that [it would] execute the prison sentence,” but asked the parties for their input “as to whether there are other alternatives available to the Court.” One week later, the parties appeared before the district court to present arguments regarding whеther the district court was precluded from imposing jail time as an intermediate sanction because appellant had already served more than one year in jail in connection with the offense.
In August 2006, the distriсt court issued an order revoking appellant’s probation and executing his 98-month prison sentence. The district court found that appellant admitted that he failed to report to jail as previously ordered and that he had only paid $728 toward his restitution. The district court also found that (1) appellant’s probation violations were willful and without legal excuse; and (2) “failure to revoke [appellant’s] probation would unduly dеpreciate the seriousness of the violations.” In its written memorandum, the district court stated:
In spite of [appellant’s] probation violations, the Court does not find that confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by [appellant]. The Court also fails to find that [appellant] is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined. The Court doеs, however, believe it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of [appellant’s] latest violations if probation were not revoked.
The district court, aware that appellant had already served а cumulative total of more than one year in jail in connection with his previous sentence and probation violations, stated:
[Appellant’s] most recent probation violation, failing to report to jаil as ordered, requires the Court to consider whether additional jail time is a possibility or revocation is the only option. Because Minnesota Statutes specifically limit the amount of time a district court may оrder a Defendant to serve in jail as a condition of probation to one year, thisCourt has no choice but to revoke [appellant’s] probation.
This appeal follows.
ISSUE
Did the district court err by revoking appellant’s probation and executing his prison sentence?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that thе district court erred by revoking his probation and executing his prison sentence because the district court’s decision was based on its erroneous conclusion that
A district court has broad discretion when determining whether to revoke probation, and it will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Ornelas, 675 N.W.2d 74, 79 (Minn.2004). The Minnesota Supreme Court has established a three-step analysis that must be applied bеfore probation may be revoked. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn.1980). The 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.” Id. The supreme court reaffirmed the third requirement in 2005 and noted that “[t]his process prevents courts from reflexively revoking probation when it is established that a defendant has violated a condition of probation.” State v. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602, 608 (Minn.2005). In determining whether the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation, district courts should consider whether:
(i) confinement is necessary to рrotect 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.
Modtland, 695 N.W.2d at 607.
If a defendant violates a condition of probation or an intermediate sanction, a district court “may without notice revoke the stay аnd direct that the defendant be taken into immediate custody.”
Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.
Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey,
584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn.1998). Application of a statute to the undisputed facts of a case involves a question of law, and the district court’s decision is not binding on this court.
O‘Malley v. Ulland Bros.,
549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn.1996). “When interpreting a statute, we first look to see whether the statute’s lan
The record shows that thе district court relied heavily upon its belief that
The district court’s analysis is flawed, however, because there is a distinction between imposing jail as a condition of probation and imposing jail for violating probation.
DECISION
The district court erred by concluding that
Reversed and remanded.