Skip to content
Police Man Arresting Young Man

Probation & Parole Violation Lawyer Minneapolis, MN

Hire Lynne Torgerson! Ms. Torgerson is a lawyer of excellence and has been practicing for over 30 years.

She can represent you or your loved one at the hearing. Serving Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, and all of Minnesota!

Get top representation from a leading Probation & Parole 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.
Castles

Probation Violation Attorney in Minneapolis MN

Minneapolis 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 Attorney Minneapolis MN

Minneapolis 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.

You Have Several Legal Rights

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.
Scale of Justice - 1

Minneapolis Probation & Parole Attorney

If you find yourself charged in a criminal case, whether federal or local, and you seek representation in Minneapolis or throughout the state of Minnesota, contact Lynne Torgerson today for your free consultation.

Consultation Request

Our Victories

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

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!

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!

Probation Violation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins motion to terminate probation early in Dakota County.

Lynne Torgerson won a motion to terminate probation early out of the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, The Honorable M. Michael Baxter presiding.  The defendant had been convicted of felony DWI. 

The defendant did well on probation, completing the Safe Streets 1st Program, 30 days of Electronic Alcohol Home Monitoring each year of probation, Victim Impact Panel, random drug testing, cognitive skill program, Alcoholic Anonymous classes, Driving with Care classes, and, had remaining law abiding. 

The defendant was also very well-liked and respected in the community, ran a successful local business for decades, and engaged in significant volunteer activities.  In Minnesota, while on felony probation, a person cannot vote or possess firearms.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

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.

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

A Man With Handcuffs

Case Law Updates

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.

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.

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.

Probation & Parole Violation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

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.

Probation & Parole Violation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Minneapolis probation violation attorney Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Whether the Court’s revocation of probation must be reversed on the grounds that its findings were inadequate?

Defendant was on probation.  Defendant was alleged to have missed his random drug testing dates.  A probation violation hearing was held.  The only question the Court asked of defendant was whether he was incarcerated when he missed his random drug testing dates.  The trail court then revoked defendant’s probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s findings on the issues of intentional and inexcusable probation violations were not adequate.  Reversed.

State v. Harper, A19-1320, Ramsey County.

Minneapolis probation violation attorney Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Can a social networking ban be imposed as a condition of supervised release?

Defendant had a history of cyber bullying.  He was placed on supervised release.  A special condition of supervised release was imposed which prohibited him from using social networking sites.  Defendant challenged the special condition.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the condition was reasonably related to his history of cyber bullying.  Affirmed.

United States v. Gurley, 19-2067, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri.

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

Modification of supervised release.

Defendant was on supervised release.  A hearing was held to modify his supervised release by adding three (3) special conditions.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals:  (1) upheld a special condition that required a mental health assessment; (2) upheld a search condition based on reasonable suspicion; (3) vacated a financial disclosure condition on the grounds that it was vague and overbroad and intruded significantly on the defendant’s liberty.  Affirmed and vacated.

United States v. Sterling, 19-1711, Loken, J.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

Should defendant’s probation have been revoked?

Defendant was on probation.  It was alleged that defendant violated his probation.  Defendant signed a form admitting that he used marijuana and admitted to using marijuana at the probation violation hearing.  Defendant alleged that he made the admissions because of coercive actions by jail officials.  Defendant sought to withdraw his admissions to probation violations.  The trial court found that defendant’s allegations regarding jail staff coercion was not credible.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s admissions were accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.  Affirmed.

Schatz v. State, A19-1394, Le Sueur County.

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

Whether the evidence was insufficient to prove escape from custody?

Defendant was convicted of escape from custody in federal court.  The evidence was that he was late in reporting to a halfway house.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the evidence was not sufficient to show that he willfully left the extended limits of confinement.  Conviction reversed and remanded.

United States v. Little, 19-2729, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District court, District of South Dakota.

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

Whether the District Court properly imposed the special condition of supervised release of no contact with girlfriend?

Defendant argued that the District Court erred when it imposed the special condition of supervised release of no contact with his girlfriend.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there was no error because the defendant committed the Iowa offense of domestic assault, of his history of violence against women, his recidivism and attempts to influence his girlfriend’s testimony, and the underlying incident, which involved him choking his pregnant girlfriend until she almost lost consciousness.  Affirmed.

United States v. Fisher, 19-1989, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

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

Whether defendant was entitled to a new probation violation hearing because the judge acted like a prosecutor?

Defendant’s felony probation was revoked in the County of Cass, State of Minnesota.  On appeal, defendant challenged the revocation of his probation arguing that the trial court failed to provide an impartial judicial officer at his probation revocation proceedings.  Noting that the trial court judge here essentially acted as a de factor prosecutor, calling a witness and eliciting testimony to prove an alleged probation violation, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new probation revocation hearing before a difference judicial officer.

State v. Headbird, A10-0030, Cass County.

Minnesota probation violation attorney Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation?

Defendant’s probation was revoked.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because this was his first violation, community based treatment had not even been attempted, and, his probation officer recommended reinstatement.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the revocation of defendant’s probation on the grounds that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  Affirmed.

State v. Vandekleft, A19-1837, Nobles County.

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

Whether defendant was entitled to a new probation violation hearing because the judge acted like a prosecutor?

Defendant’s felony probation was revoked in the County of Cass, State of Minnesota.  On appeal, defendant challenged the revocation of his probation arguing that the trial court failed to provide an impartial judicial officer at his probation revocation proceedings.  Noting that the trial court judge here essentially acted as a de factor prosecutor, calling a witness and eliciting testimony to prove an alleged probation violation, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new probation revocation hearing before a difference judicial officer.

State v. Headbird, A10-0030, Cass County.

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

Whether the policies favoring probation were outweighed by the need for confinement?

Defendant was convicted of 1st degree criminal sexual conduct.  His probation was revoked and his prison sentence was executed.  Defendant appealed.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.  This was defendant’s fourth probation violation, and all of his violations involved the use of methamphetamine.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the record supported that trial court’s determination that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.

State v. Case, A19-2028, Wright County.

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

Whether the State did present clear and convincing evidence of an intentional probation violation?

Defendant challenged the revocation of his probation.  He argued that the State (1) failed to present clear and convincing evidence of an intentional probation violation; and (2) that the need for confinement did not outweigh the policies favoring probation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the there was no abuse of discretion in revoking defendant’s probation, noting that the State did present clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated his conditions of probation.  Defendant failed to engage in treatment, and accessed pornography.

State v. Cardinale, A20-0524, Scott County.

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

Defendant challenged the revocation of his supervised release.

Defendant had a parole violation, and his supervised release was revoked.  On appeal, defendant challenged the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the evidence sufficient to support the finding that defendant violated the conditions of supervised release.  Additionally, the defendant had been released from prison, the the issue of substantive reasonableness of the sentence was moot.  Affirmed.

United States v. Cole, 20-1384, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa.

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

Hire The Trusted & Experienced Minnesota Probation & Parole Violation Lawyer