CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether defendant’s probation violations were intentional or inexcusable?
Defendant’s probation was revoked. Defendant appealed. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court failed to find that his probation violations were intentional or inexcusable, and, that the record did not support the Court’s finding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. Noting that defendant admitted that his controlled substance violations were either intentional or inexcusable, and the trial court’s express finding that the Austin factors were satisfied, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the violations were intentional or inexcusable thus supporting the probation revocation.
State v. Jackson, A20-0782, Stearns County.
Minnesota Probation Violation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.