This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Jeffrey Scott James,
Filed September 25, 2007
Toussaint, Chief Judge
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800
Robert J. Raupp, Benton County Attorney, Benton County Courts Facility, 615 Highway 23, Post Office Box 189, Foley, MN 56329 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State
Public Defender, Philip Marron, Assistant Public Defender,
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Jeffrey Scott James challenges the order revoking his probation imposed for
felony DWI, arguing that the district court failed to make adequate findings on
the factors established for probation revocation by State
v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (
D E C I S I O N
“[B]efore probation [may] be
revoked, the [district] court must 1) designate the specific condition or
conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or
inexcusable; and 3) find that the need for confinement outweighs the policies
favoring probation.” State v.
The district court made no written findings. The hearing transcript indicates that the district court, after establishing that appellant waived his right to a hearing, asked him what happened. Appellant said:
I found some alcohol in my spare bedroom when I was cleaning it, and I made an attempt to dump it out, and then I smelled it and end up I drank it.
What landed me in the hospital was I have a neighbor across the street that’s dying from cancer, and I was helping him out. . . . [H]e drank, and it did not bother me at first. I was on Campral and ran out of my med, and I brought him a picnic table, and he was drinking and I started drinking. I’m kind of vulnerable that way, and I just –I consumed too much. And – and I started to walk home, and I fell and dislocated my shoulder, and . . .they took me to the hospital and put my arm back in place and then detoxified me.
The district court said, “That’s a sufficient admission for the Court on all of the claimed violations here.”
The state’s attorney then told the district court that appellant had failed to sign releases of information so his probation agent could verify the reason he was hospitalized and get information on whether he was following up with his mental health treatment and that appellant had also not provided verification of AA attendance. Appellant agreed that he did not get the AA attendance slips to his probation officer, that he had not provided her with releases so she could check on his medical and mental health treatment, and that he became confused in taking his medication.
The district court told appellant that he was
committed to the Commissioner of Corrections for 42 months, and we stayed that on the conditions that you do all of these things that you’ve been telling me you haven’t done beyond a slip occasionally, which happens to people. You just haven’t been cooperating here at all. I understand you’ve got problems, and they are major problems to deal with; but from the standpoint of public safety, I can’t continue to leave you sitting around not doing the things you’re supposed to do and not working with your agent, so I’m going to execute your sentence.
The issue is
whether these remarks meet the
that courts make findings under the
695 N.W.2d at
608. As the supreme court did in Modtland, we “reverse and remand for a
new hearing in which findings are to be made on the record in accordance with
the principles set forth in this decision.”
Reversed and remanded.
 Because we reverse and remand for adequate findings, we do not address the merits of appellant’s probation revocation.