This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. ß 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Carlos M. Wadsworth,
Polk County District Court
File No. K8031264
Lori Swanson, 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, Philip Marron, Assistant Public Defender, Suite 425, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
††††††††††† Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Dietzen, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
††††††††††† Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that the district court abused its discretion because the evidence does not establish that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation.† Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the need for appellantís confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation, we affirm.
October 2003, appellant Carlos M. Wadsworth pleaded guilty to first-degree refusal
to submit to chemical testing.† In
November 2003, the district court sentenced
††††††††††† Well, I will tell you, Mr. Wadsworth, that Iíve got a few concerns about this sentencing agreement and I looked at your record and I am going to go along with the plea agreement in this case, but I will tell you that youíre looking at 54 months in prison if you violate the terms and conditions of your probation.† And I donít think youíre going to be given too much slack by probation or this Court if you violate the terms and conditions of your probation.† Youíre very fortunate to get this type of plea agreement in this case.
part of his probation, the district court ordered
††††††††††† In June 2004, the state initiated a
probation-revocation proceeding against
††††††††††† In June 2005, while, due to a series
of continuances, this probation-revocation matter was pending in district
Iím going to find that your need for confinement at this point outweigh[s] the policies favoring probation.† Specifically, your two DWIs that you received . . . show that you are not amenable to probation.† Your drinking and driving shows that you do pose a substantial public safety risk. . . .† And because those were DWI offenses, it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if the Court did not revoke your probation.
district court executed