From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Washington

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Nov 19, 2002
No. C0-02-914 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2002)

Opinion

No. C0-02-914

Filed November 19, 2002.

Appeal from the Ramsey County District Court, File No. K302787.

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, and

Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Darrell C. Hill, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Jodie Lee Carlson, Assistant State Public Defender, (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Harten, Judge.


This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).


UNPUBLISHED OPINION


Appellant Kevin Washington, on supervised release as an extended jurisdiction juvenile for an aggravated robbery conviction, appeals the execution of his stayed sentence following a revocation hearing. Because Washington violated the provisions of the disposition order and there were no mitigating factors justifying continuation of the stay, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering execution of the sentence and we affirm.

DECISION

A court must sentence a child who pleads guilty under Minn. Stat. § 260B.130 (2000) (Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction statute) to both a juvenile disposition and an adult criminal sentence. Id. at subd. 4. The adult criminal sentence is stayed on condition that the child does not violate the provisions of the disposition order and does not commit a new offense. Id. If the court finds that the child has violated the conditions of probation or committed a new offense, the court "must order execution of the previously imposed [adult] sentence unless the court makes written findings regarding the mitigating factors that justify continuing the stay." Id. at subd. 5. A district court's decision to revoke the stayed adult criminal sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Welfare of J.K., 641 N.W.2d 617, 621 (Minn.App. 2002).

The district court stayed execution of Washington's adult sentence on the condition that he maintain weekly contact with his probation agent. He was specifically told that this was an important condition of the stay, and that failure to maintain contact would result in revocation of the stay. Despite this and the additional warnings of his probation agent, Washington failed to maintain contact over a four-month period of time. He was also charged with an additional offense during this time, constituting another violation of the stay conditions. Washington's explanation, essentially that he was too busy to contact the probation agent, is not a mitigating factor.

The district court stated, and we agree, that "[Washington] does need to be held accountable for his mistakes and he needs to take responsibility for his mistakes." The district court did not abuse it discretion in revoking the stayed sentence.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Washington

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Nov 19, 2002
No. C0-02-914 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2002)
Case details for

State v. Washington

Case Details

Full title:State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kevin Demarco Washington, Appellant

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 19, 2002

Citations

No. C0-02-914 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2002)