Becker County District Court File No. 03-K2-04-000941
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Worke, Judge
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Schellhas, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court's revocation of his probation following repeated probation violations, arguing that the district court failed to consider his amenability to probation. We affirm.
In September 2005 appellant Brian Keith Jackson was convicted of first-degree driving while intoxicated and sentenced to a stayed prison sentence of 72 months and up to seven years' probation. On January 19, 2007, a probation violation report was filed alleging appellant failed to update his sex offender registration information, and he failed to report to his probation officer. On January 30, 2007, the district court found that appellant violated the terms of his probation and ordered appellant to be reinstated on probation.
On September 28, 2010, another probation violation report was filed, alleging appellant was repeatedly cited for driving without a valid drivers' license and failed to report to his probation officer as directed. On November 16, 2010, the district court found that appellant violated the terms of his probation, and ordered that appellant be reinstated on probation on condition that he serve 90 days in jail.
On November 14, 2011, a third probation violation report was filed, alleging appellant had positive urinalysis tests and admitted to smoking marijuana. Appellant also did not advise his probation officer before changing his employment and he did not report to his probation officer. At a probation violation hearing on May 10, 2012, appellant admitted that he violated probation by using drugs, failing to keep his probation officer advised of his employment, and not reporting to his probation officer. The district court continued the matter to consider appellant's entire record.
On May 24, 2012 the district court revoked appellant's probation and executed his 72 month prison sentence. The district court expressed concern that, although appellant had only about five months of probation remaining, reinstating him on probation would send the message that there were no consequences near the end of his probationary period. The district court concluded that appellant was "clearly not amenable to probation" because he repeatedly violated the same conditions of probation. The district court stated, "I can't see that this is anything but intentional and inexcusable," because behavior expectations were clearly discussed with appellant following the two prior probation violations but appellant "just did it all over again," and because accommodations were made for appellant's occasional homelessness.
Finally, the district court concluded,
I just think at this point, Brian, the need for confinement does outweigh the policies favoring probation. You tried it. You're nonamenable. You know, just is [sic] it's a fruitless procedure anymore in your case. At this point in time . . . the . . . need for -- for confinement . . . just outweighs the probationary requirements.
And this was a serious offense from the beginning, Brian. And if we just continue to put you in jail, regardless of your failure to cooperate, I think that clearly -- clearly ...