This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Jeremy S. Suedel,
Reversed and remanded
Polk County District Court
File No. K4031794
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Gregory Widseth, Polk County Attorney,
John M. Stuart, Minnesota Public Defender, Richard Schmitz, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.
challenges the revocation of his probation.
Because the district court did not make the findings required under State v. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602 (
Jeremy S. Suedel pleaded guilty to first-degree assault. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Suedel was
sentenced to 115 months, execution of the sentence was stayed, and Suedel was
placed on probation for 25 years with conditions. The sentence represented a downward dispositional
departure from the sentencing guidelines.
Subsequently, Suedel was
charged with violating his probation by failing to abstain from the use of
chemicals, failing to maintain contact with his probation agent, failing to
follow the recommendations of the chemical use assessment, and failing to
remain law abiding. At a probation
revocation hearing, Suedel admitted the violations, including his use of
marijuana and conviction of criminal mischief in
An updated chemical use assessment and psychological evaluation were ordered in the interim. The updated chemical use assessment resulted in a recommendation for extended inpatient chemical dependency treatment. At the disposition hearing, Suedel requested that probation be continued, with programming for chemical use and mental health as additional conditions. The district court found that appellant had violated the terms of his probation and, without making any additional findings, executed Suedel’s sentence of 115 months. This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
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.
courts must designate the specific condition or conditions of probation the
defendant has violated. Second, courts
must find the violation was inexcusable or intentional. Once a court has made findings that a
violation has occurred and has found that the violation was either intentional
or inexcusable, the court must proceed to the third
Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602, 606 (
Prior to Modtland, this court interpreted
Modtland was decided three days after
Suedel’s probation was revoked, but we apply the holding to Suedel’s case on
direct appeal even though the district court did not have the benefit of the
supreme court’s decision in Modtland.
district court appropriately found that Suedel violated specific conditions of
his probation but made no findings on the second and third
Reversed and remanded.
 Although Suedel is requesting that his probation be
reinstated, under Modtland, it is
clear that a new hearing should be held and the court should make findings
regarding all three