This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. ' 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C2-96-161

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.
Glenn Alan Daniels,
Appellant.

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 89900476

Filed July 16,1996
Affirmed
Toussaint, Chief Judge

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, State Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Donna J. Wolfson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Sharon E. Jacks, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Stone, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge

Glenn Daniels appeals revocation of his stayed sentence for second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Daniels argues that the district court erred when, after determining that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, it placed the burden of finding a community-based treatment program on defense counsel. We affirm.

DECISION

The district court has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke a defendant's probation and that decision will be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Minn. 1980). When ordering revocation of probation, the district court must find (1) the probationer violated a specific condition of probation, (2) the violation was intentional or inexcusable, and (3) the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation. Id.

Daniels argues that the district court, after finding that he violated his probation and that the need for confinement did not outweigh the policies favoring probation, improperly placed the burden of finding a community-based sexual offender program on defense counsel. He asserts that the burden to find or design sucha program should have been placed on the state.

A review of the record reveals that the district court found Daniels intentionally violated two of the terms of his probation by having unapproved contact with a minor in his apartment and by failing to complete a sexual offender program at Alpha House. While the court concluded that his sentence should be executed, it gave defense counsel one week to find a suitable community-based alternative to incarceration. Only after defense counsel was unable to locate such a program did the district court revoke Daniels's probation.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its decision under the circumstances presented in this case. The court made the proper findings, and any other result might cause sentencing judges to be unduly cautious in ordering probation. See State v. Thompson, 486 N.W.2d 163, 165 (Minn. App. 1992) (holding district court did not err in revoking probation when facilities contemplated in sentencing alternative became unavailable).

 Affirmed.


Footnotes

* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, ' 10.