State v. Daniels

Full title: STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent, v. GLENN ALAN DANIELS, Appellant

Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 16, 1996

No. C2-96-161 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 16, 1996)

Opinion

No. C2-96-161.

Filed July 16, 1996.

Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 89900476.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, State Attorney General, (for respondent).

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Donna J. Wolfson, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent).

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Sharon E. Jacks, Assistant State Public Defender, (for appellant).

Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Stone, Judge.^_

_ Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge.

Glenn Daniels appeals revocation of his stayed sentence for second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Daniels argues that the district court erred when, after determining that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, it placed the burden of finding a community-based treatment program on defense counsel. We affirm.

DECISION

The district court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke a defendant's probation and that decision will be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Minn. 1980). When ordering revocation of probation, the district court must find (1) the probationer violated a specific condition of probation, (2) the violation was intentional or inexcusable, and (3) the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation. Id.

Daniels argues that the district court, after finding that he violated his probation and that the need for confinement did not outweigh the policies favoring probation, improperly placed the burden of finding a community-based sexual offender program on defense counsel. He asserts that the burden to find or design sucha program should have been placed on the state.

A review of the record reveals that the district court found Daniels intentionally violated two of the terms of his probation by having unapproved contact with a minor in his apartment and by failing to complete a sexual offender program at Alpha House. While the court concluded that his sentence should be executed, it gave defense counsel one week to find a suitable community-based alternative to incarceration. Only after defense counsel was unable to locate such a program did the district court revoke Daniels's probation.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its decision under the circumstances presented in this case. The court made the proper findings, and any other result might cause sentencing judges to be unduly cautious in ordering probation. See State v. Thompson, 486 N.W.2d 163, 165 (Minn.App. 1992) (holding district court did not err in revoking probation when facilities contemplated in sentencing alternative became unavailable).

Affirmed.