This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Kevin Demarco Washington,
Filed November 19, 2002
Ramsey County District Court
File No. K302787
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and
Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Darrell C. Hill, Assistant County Attorney, 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Jodie Lee Carlson, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Harten, Judge.
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.
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.