Opinion
A23-0414
03-05-2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jacob Lawrence Tibbetts, Appellant.
Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CR-15-998
Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jennifer L. Frisch, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In January 2016, appellant Jacob Lawrence Tibbetts pleaded guilty to second-degree controlled-substance sale and fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle. Tibbetts moved for a downward dispositional departure from the guidelines sentence of 100 months' imprisonment. The district court granted the motion, stayed Tibbetts's sentence for 25 years, and placed Tibbetts on probation.
2. On August 26, 2020, the state submitted the first of three probation-violation reports, in which it alleged that Tibbetts violated the condition that he abstain from the use of mood-altering chemicals. At an uncontested hearing, Tibbetts admitted to this violation. As a sanction for the violation, the district court ordered that Tibbetts serve 30 days in the county jail or to comply with urine-analysis testing.
3. On November 16, 2021, the state submitted a second probation-violation report, in which it alleged that Tibbetts failed to abstain from mood-altering substances, submit to urine analysis as directed, and remain law-abiding. With respect to his alleged failure to remain law-abiding, the state maintained that on October 12, 2021, Tibbetts was arrested for violating a harassment restraining order (HRO).
4. On February 10, 2022, the district court held a second probation-violation hearing. The probation officer testified that since the filing of the second probation-violation report, Tibbetts was charged in Chisago County with two additional HRO violations and one count of fifth-degree assault. The probation officer represented that the state was asking that the district court consider the charges as additional allegations that Tibbetts had violated his probation and that "if convictions [did] result, [the state] would not pursue an additional violation." Tibbetts's attorney represented to the district court that the parties had reached an agreement on "all of those other terms." Tibbetts then sought clarification from the district court as to whether it would consider "all of the charges together." The district court explained to Tibbetts, "you will admit that you failed to remain law abiding and that there is probable cause for four cases. And then, in the future, there won't be another consequence for those." The district court questioned Tibbetts on the charges, asking "So, you agree that you got charged on two separate occasions for violating an existing Harassment Restraining Order? And then, you also got charged with a Fifth-degree Assault; is that right?" Tibbetts agreed that he had. The district court then asked Tibbetts whether he agreed that probable cause supported those charges, and Tibbetts agreed that it did. The district court then asked Tibbetts whether he agreed that "that doesn't constitute good behavior." Tibbetts responded: "I don't. I will-well, I haven't been found guilty yet. So, I don't want to, Your Honor, out of respect, I don't really want to admit or not whether my behavior was-what my behavior was; if you understand that?" The district court stated that it would "accept those for your admissions for now," but would defer acceptance until the disposition hearing. The district court held a disposition hearing on February 25, where it commented only on Tibbetts's substance use and ordered that Tibbetts serve 30 days in jail. The district court did not mention the pending charges at the disposition hearing.
5. On October 28, 2022, the state submitted a third probation-violation report, in which it alleged that Tibbetts violated his conditions of probation by: (1) committing assaults on October 20, 2021, and October 31, 2022; (2) failing to meet with probation as directed; (3) failing to notify probation that he had had contact with law enforcement; (4) failing to notify probation that he had been charged with a new crime; (5) failing to notify probation that he had changed his address; (6) failing to verify that he had completed the recommended chemical-dependency treatment; and (7) failing to follow all state and federal laws. As to the allegations of failing to remain law-abiding, the state identified the charges resulting from the Chisago County fifth-degree assault mentioned at the second probation-violation hearing, two HRO violations also from Chisago County, a fifth-degree assault in Washington County, and threats of violence in Washington County.
6. On December 19, 2022, the district court held a third probation-violation hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, Tibbetts's attorney represented that Tibbetts would be admitting to all of the allegations, "excluding the case out of Washington County," which was then-pending. The district court then questioned Tibbetts about his "assaultive behavior," but did not reference any particular charge. Tibbetts admitted that he had engaged in such behavior.
7. The district court accepted Tibbetts's admissions and found that the violations were intentional and inexcusable. In so doing, the district court specifically found that Tibbetts had violated the conditions of probation that he not engage in assaultive, violent, or disorderly conduct, that he contact his probation officer as directed, that he complete a chemical-use assessment, and that he follow all state and federal criminal laws. It then observed that this was Tibbetts's third violation, and it concluded that the need for confinement outweighed any policies favoring probation. The district court reasoned, "And I think that the record is clear with your crimes of violence, which have been escalating, that confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity. I do believe that it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violations if I did not revoke your probation." The district court revoked Tibbetts's probation and executed his 100-month sentence for the controlled-substance offense. Tibbetts appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation.
8. A district court has "broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion." State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Minn. 1980). "A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion.
9. A district court must make three findings prior to revoking a defendant's probation. State v. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602, 606 (Minn. 2005). It must "1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation." Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 250. To make the third finding, the only finding in dispute here, the district court considers whether:
(i) confinement is necessary to protect 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 (quoting Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 251).
10. A district court must also follow the procedure set forth in Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04 before revoking probation. Generally, a district court must hold a revocation hearing to determine whether clear and convincing evidence shows that the defendant violated a condition of probation and, if so, whether the circumstances warrant revocation. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04, subds. 2(1)(c)(b), 3(1). But a defendant may waive the right to a contested hearing and admit the specified violation. State v. Xiong, 638 N.W.2d 499, 503 (Minn.App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002). Such a waiver "serves as a stipulation to the state's allegations in the violation report" and "the district court may base its finding on the violation report and the [defendant's] waiver." Id.
11. Our review of the record shows that the district court appears to have based its Modtland conclusion solely on its finding that Tibbetts's "crimes of violence" were escalating. (Emphasis added.) But Tibbetts did not waive his right to a contested hearing on whether he engaged in multiple crimes of violence nor did he admit that he committed multiple violent crimes. Tibbetts admitted only to a single violent crime: a fifth-degree assault in Chisago County, and he specifically did not admit to probation violations originating from the alleged violent crimes in Washington County. Absent an admission by Tibbetts, or clear and convincing evidence presented at a contested hearing, the district court could not rely on the Washington County offense as the basis to sanction Tibbetts for violating his probation. See State v. Moot, 398 N.W.2d 21, 23 (Minn.App. 1986) (stating that the district court must determine that "there is clear and convincing evidence that a defendant violated the conditions of probation"), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 13, 1987); Xiong, 638 N.W.2d at 503 (stating that at an uncontested hearing, a district court may find that a violation occurred based on the probationer's stipulation to the state's allegations). The district court's finding that Tibbetts engaged in multiple crimes involving escalating conduct is therefore clearly erroneous and cannot serve as a basis to revoke probation. We therefore must reverse the execution of sentence and remand to the district court for a new probation-violation hearing.
12. Tibbetts also argues that the district court violated his due-process and double-jeopardy rights by considering the Chisago County fifth-degree assault in imposing sanctions at both the second and third probation-revocation hearings. He claims that the district court imposed two, separate sanctions for the same conduct. We do not address the argument for two reasons. First, we "do not decide constitutional questions except when necessary to do so in order to dispose of the case at bar." State v. Hoyt, 304 N.W.2d 884, 888 (Minn. 1981). That exception is not satisfied here. Second, the parties did not raise this issue before the district court and the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to decide this issue raised for the first time on appeal. It is unclear from the record whether Tibbetts admitted to the Chisago County assault at the second violation hearing, as he expressly declined to admit to the underlying factual basis of the charge and admitted only to the fact that he was charged with a crime. Moreover, it is unclear whether the district court accepted this admission or sanctioned Tibbetts based on this behavior at the disposition hearing. On remand, the parties may develop the record related to this argument and the district court may make appropriate findings.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is reversed and remanded.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.