Minnesota Probation & Parole Violation Lawyer & Defense Attorney2020-05-20T00:36:30+00:00

Minneapolis Probation Violation Attorney

A probationary sentence is a stayed, deferred, or a suspended jail sentence, which facilitates in allowing the convicted individual to continue to lead a normal life.

A probation allows an individual to serve his or her sentence on conditions of probation, rather than serving the entire sentence  in jail, the workhouse, or prison, provided they adhere to all the terms of the probation.  In the instance of a convicted individual violating the terms of the probation however, then there is a very high probability of consequences which could lead to serious legal problems such as completion of the jail sentence, prison, and more serious penalties.

Only an experienced and qualified Probation Violation Attorney such as Lynne Torgerson can understand the legal consequences, as well as your fears and stress, associated with your case.  She is known to vigorously battle for the cause of her clients and to ensure that all your probation violation issues are resolved.  With over 29 years of experience in the legal field, Ms. Torgerson has realized that the consequences of a probation violation can be quite challenging for the defendant, as well as his/her family, and this is one reason why she works so diligently on your behalf.

Probation Violation Defense Lawyer Minneapolis MN

Minnesota Probation Violation Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson, a lawyer of excellence and experience of over 29 years, can represent you if you or your loved one have been charged with a violation of probation, in all counties in the State of Minnesota.  Please note, a violation of probation may not automatically result in a probation revocation.  A court must first determine whether there was a probation violation or not, whether the violation was intentional or inexcusable, and, third, and most importantly, whether the policies favoring probation are outweighed by the need for incarceration.  Typically, in Minnesota, there are two (2) court date for an alleged probation violation.  The first is an admit or deny hearing.  If a person admits the violation, the court will proceed to sentencing, hopefully pursuant to an agreement with the prosecution.  If there is no agreement and no admittance, then the case is scheduled for a contested hearing.  At this hearing, the court will determine the above mentioned factors, and, proceed to the imposition of sentence, again, sometimes pursuant to an agreement with the State.

Non-adherence to the terms of the probation could be due to a number of reasons.  While it is a probability that the violation or non-adherence was due to miscommunication, there is also a probability that the violation was due to the involvement of the defendant in a different crime, or the failure to complete a condition of probation, testing positive on a UA, failing to pay restitution, failure to keep appointments, etc. At a hearing, it is the defendant’s decision whether or not he admits or denies the occurrence of the violation.

The severity of the penalties for violating probation primarily depends on the type and extent of the violation(s).   Some of the common penalties include the imposition of additional jail or prison time, treatment, extra fines, and extension of the term of probation.

Parole Violation Defense Minneapolis MN

Minnesota Probation Violation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson, a lawyer of excellence and experience of over 29 years, can represent you if you have been charged with a parole violation.  A parole violation is generally classified as a technical violation or a direct violation. If the parole violation was due to a miscommunication or confusion, then it is considered as a technical parole violation. However, if the parole was deliberately violated then it is considered as a direct violation. Whatever be the reason for your violation of the terms of the parole, it is highly recommended that you seek the services of a professional Parole Defense Lawyer as soon as possible.

It is good to know that even in the instance of a probation or parole violation, an individual enjoys several legal rights, and, that there are usually several things that can be achieved to minimize consequences, and/or to litigate the case on your behalf.  However, it is a fact that a majority of the individuals involved in the probation or parole violation cases are not aware of such rights.  This is one reason why you need to hire the services of a reputed probation and parole violation lawyer such as Lynne Torgerson.

When you find yourself in a legal ambush, finding the right Minnesota probation and parole violation defense lawyer could be your first step towards the attainment of your legal objectives. Please call the law office of Lynne Torgerson to request a free consultation to handle your legal problems.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson secures quashing of warrant for  not completing probation and moving out of State of Minnesota and, discharge from probation

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson got an eight (8) year old warrant quashed for a client who lived out of state, and also obtained his discharge from probation.  Ms. Torgerson accomplished this without having to have her client come back to Minnesota for court.

Initially, Ms. Torgerson’s client’s misdemeanor DWI charged was reduced to a misdemeanor careless driving.  Then, prior to completing his probationary requirements, he had to move to another state to attend college.  Because he had not completed his probation requirements, in 2011, a warrant was issued for his arrest.  While living in another state, around six (6) years later, he was convicted of DWI.  In connection with the DWI in another state, he served three (3) days in jail, completed a MADD Victim Impact class, and Ms. Torgerson had him complete an additional sixteen (16) hours of community service.  Ms. Torgerson worked out a resolution whereby his out of state three (3) days jail could be applied to the 2 days STS Minnesota required, have the MADD class apply to his Minnesota 1 Day Program requirement, and use the extra day of jail and 2 days community service apply to the Minnesota probation violation.  Consequently, he was deemed to have satisfied his Minnesota sentence, the warrant was quashed,  his Minnesota probation deemed conditions satisfied, and he was discharged from probation without having to return to Minnesota for court.  Some would say the case could not have come out better.  Well done Ms. Torgerson!

Minnesota Probation Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins early discharge from probation

Prior to hiring Ms. Torgerson, Ms. Torgerson’s client had pleaded guilty to felony third degree controlled substance crime, out of the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota.  Fortunately, he had obtained a stay of imposition of sentence.  He was however, sentenced up to 10 years on probation.  For the next two (2) years, Mr. Torgerson’s client had done exceptionally well on probation.  He had remained law abiding, he had attended AA as required, and he had remained drug and alcohol free and passed his UAs.  Ms. Torgerson’s client therefore wanted to request an early discharge for release.  Accordingly, he retained Ms. Torgerson to bring a motion to terminate probation early.  This type of motion is not uncommon, and, can be won.  Ms. Torgerson filed said motion, obtained and hearing date, and had her client testify.  Her client made a very good impression on the judge.  Consequently, the court granted Ms. Torgerson’s client’s motion to terminate his probation early.  At that time, his conviction was also reduced to a misdemeanor as a matter of law.  Well done Mr. Client and Ms. Torgerson!

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Probation revocation reversed for trial court failure to make requisite findings 

After pleading guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant received 15 years of probation.  After defendant violated his conditions of probation, the trial court revoked his probation.  Defendant appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support the revocation of defendant’s probation, noting that the trial court failed to use the terms intentional or inexcusable in describing the violations.  Reversed and remanded.

State v. Hill, A19-0313, Dakota County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Statements made during a parole revocation hearing admissible at later trial

Where a defendant challenged the trial court’s refusal to exclude incriminating statements that he made at a State parole revocation hearing, the judgment is affirmed because the defendant voluntarily testified after being advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent, and there were no other dangers of unfair prejudice.  Judgment is affirmed.

United States v. Daniels, 18-3049, appealed from the Western District of Arkansas, Erickson, J.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Commentary:  Important reminder:  you have a right to remain silent and any statements you make may be used against you in court.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Revocation of probation in 1st degree felony DWI  

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of 1st degree driving while intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to a plea agreement.  In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant received a stayed sentence and seven years of probation.  After multiple violations, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation.  Defendant appealed, challenging the revocation and his sentence.  Noting the findings that defendant exhausted the resources available to him and was not amenable to supervision in the community, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court made adequate findings supporting the revocation of defendant’s probation.  Affirmed.

State v. Dahl, A19-0096, Lake of the Woods County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  In probation violation hearing test is whether the need for confinement outweigh policies favoring probation 

Defendant challenged the trial court’ decision to revoke his probation and to execute his prison sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation because the court did not inquire as to whether defendant had the ability to pay restitution, and because defendant had completed chemical dependency treatment.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation, noting that defendant had lied to probation about the existence of a daughter’s school play, and that the failure to pay restitution was not the determining factor.  Affirmed.

State v. Poignee, A19-0293, Crow Wing County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Hearsay admitted in revocation of supervised release hearing for new forgery case 

Defendant appealed from the revocation of her supervised release, following her arrest for forgery.  At the revocation hearing, defendant’s probation officer read from the police report of her arrest.  A hearsay objection and right of confrontation objection was not made at that time.  On appeal, defendant argued this gave her the right to confront the report’s author.

Where the defendant failed to invoke her purported right to question the arrest report’s author, she waived her argument on appeal.  Judgment is affirmed.

United States v. Gorsline, 18-3708, appealed from the Southern District of Iowa, per curiam.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Questions posed by judge during probation violation hearing

Defendant challenged the revocation of his probation.  Defendant contended that the trial court deprived him of due process of law by conducting an independent investigation by questioning his sobriety, ordering a chemical test, and reporting its results.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not err by questioning defendant, ordering him to submit to chemical testing, and considering his admitted positive test result among other facts justifying revocation of probation.  Affirmed.

State v. Foote, A19-0838, Dakota County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Probation violation held intentional or inexcusable by Anoka County District Court

Defendant was alleged to have violated his probation.  The Anoka County District Court found that defendant intentionally or inexcusably violated the conditions of his probation, and, that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  Indeed, this is the correct legal standard.  On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conclusions of the trial court.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the record amply supported the trial court’s determination that defendant both intentionally and inexcusably violated the condition that he complete domestic abuse programming as directed by probation.

State v. Pedersen, A19-1075, Anoka County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Defendant’s probation was revoked after he was terminated from sex offender treatment

A condition of defendant’s probation was that he successfully complete sex offender treatment.  Defendant was terminated from sex offender treatment and a probation violation was reported.  The trial court found that defendant had intentionally violated his probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the revocation of defendant’s probation noting that the trial court considered defendant’s explanation that he missed his first two treatment sessions because he forgot about them.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s failure to attend sex offender treatment, and his subsequent termination from it, did not occur through no fault of his own.  Affirmed.

State v. Ramat, A19-0895, Anoka County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Does defendant get credit on supervised release term for excess incarceration?

Defendant was sentenced to 63 months incarceration.  He served time beyond the 63 months.  The District Court imposed a supervised release term that did not grant him credit for the excess time served.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s judgment on the grounds that prior case law foreclosed his argument and that he was not entitled to custody credit of excess incarceration on a term of supervised release.  Affirmed.

United States v. Walker, 18-3414, appealed from the District of Minnesota, per curiam.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Sentence in federal court on revocation of supervised release

Well, as the saying goes . . . Don’t make a federal case out of it.  And for good reason!  They don’t mess around in federal court.

Defendant appealed from a two (2) year prison sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release.  On appeal, defendant argued that his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.

Where the District Court was not obligated to consider or aggregate a prior revocation prison term when imposing a new sentence for revocation of supervised release, the District Court did not err by imposing the statutory maximum of two (2) years.  (No credit for prior time served!).  Affirmed.

United States v. Two Crow, 18-3252, appealed from the District of South Dakota, per curiam.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Appeal becomes moot upon release from prison

Defendant was sentenced in his federal criminal case.  He appealed, raising the issue of whether the District Court erred when it denied his motion to correct or set aside the sentence.  While his appeal was pending, defendant was released from prison.  Accordingly, his appeal is moot.  Appeal is dismissed.

Owen v. United States, 17-3487, appealed from the District of North Dakota, Colloton, J.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Should the trial court have revoked defendant’s probation?

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoke his probation because the record did not support a finding that the need for confienment outweighted the policies favoring probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was no abuse of discretion, noting that it was defendant’s 3rd formal probation violation, he had previously failed to complete his ordered chemical dependency evaluation, and, he had failed to demonstrate any meaningful progress in his treatment goals.  Affirmed.

State v. Lehman, A19-1077, Stearns County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Should the trial court have revoked defendant’s probation?

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoke his probation because the record did not support a finding that the need for confienment outweighted the policies favoring probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was no abuse of discretion, noting that it was defendant’s 3rd formal probation violation, he had previously failed to complete his ordered chemical dependency evaluation, and, he had failed to demonstrate any meaningful progress in his treatment goals.  Affirmed.

State v. Lehman, A19-1077, Stearns County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  When revoking probation and executing a sentence a court cannot prospectively prohibit good time credit

Defendant violated his probation.  At the probation violation hearing, the court revoked defendant’s work release privileges, and, ordered an additional year of incarceration as an intermediate sanction.  The court also ordered that defendant could not accrue any good time credit under Minnesota Statute §643.29.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding that when a trial court imposes an intermediate sanction of incarceration for a probation violation, the defendant is entitled to the statutory good conduct allowance and it cannot be prospectively deprived.

State v. Hoskins, A19-0959, Carver County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Contact Us Today For A Free Consultation

Our Minneapolis and Minnesota Probation Violation and Parole Violation Lawyer, Ms. Lynne Torgerson, Esq., practices throughout the State of Minnesota.

More specifically, the terrorities in which Ms. Torgerson, Esq. practices include:

Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Aitkin County, Albert Lea, Anoka County, Becker County, Beltrami County, Benton County, Big Stone County, Blaine, Bloomington, Blue Earth County, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Brown County, Carlton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Clearwater County, Columbia Heights, Cook County, Coon Rapids, Cottonwood County, Crow Wing County, Crystal, Dakota County, Dodge County, Douglas County, Faribault County, Freeborn County, Fridley, Goodhue County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Hennepin County, Hopkins, Houston County, Hubbard County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Jackson County, Kanabec County, Kandiyohi County, Kittson County, Koochiching County, Lac Qui Parle County, Lake County, Lake of the Woods County, LeSueur County, Lincoln County, Lyon County, Mahnomen County, Maple Grove, Marshall County, Martin County, McLeod County, Mille Lacs County, Meeker County, Minneapolis, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Nicollet County, Nobles County, Norman County, Olmsted County, Otter Tail County, Pennington County, Pine County, Pipestone County, Plymouth, Polk County, Pope County, Ramsey County, Red Lake County, Red Wing, Redwood County, Renville County, Rice County, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rochester, Rock County, Roseau County, St. Louis County, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, Savage, Scott County, Sherburne County, Shakopee, Sibley County, Spring Lake Park, Stearns County, Steele County, Stevens County, Stillwater, Swift County, Todd County, Traverse County, Wabasha County, Wadena County, Waseca County, Washington County, Watonwan County, Wilkin County, Winona County, Wright County, Yellow Medicine, and throughout the State of Minnesota.  Again however, Ms. Torgerson practices in all cities, all counties, and all courts, throughout the State of Minnesota.

Contact Minnesota Probation and Parole Violation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson today at (612) 339-5073 to schedule your free consultation.  Our law firm can help you with our qualified Probation Violation Lawyer and Parole Violation Lawyer in Minneapolis, Minnesota.