may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Troy Allen Craig,
Filed March 16, 1999
Martin County District Court
File Nos. KX89646, K889869, KO9218
Terry W. Viesselman, Martin County Attorney, Michael D. Truschenski, Assistant County Attorney, 923 North State Street, Fairmont, MN 56031 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Melissa V. Sheridan, Assistant Public Defender, 875 Summit Avenue, Suite 254, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
On appeal from a reversal of probation and execution of stayed sentence for three separate offenses, Troy Allen Craig argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to expressly find: (1) he intentionally or inexcusably violated the terms of his probation; and (2) the need for confinement outweighed the policy favoring probation. We affirm.
We will reverse a trial court's determination to revoke probation only if there is a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 249-50 (Minn. 1980). If an offender has admitted to violating a condition of probation, the trial court may continue probation or order the execution of a previously imposed sentence. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04, subd. 3 (3)b.
The record demonstrates Craig: (1) failed to update his address on the sex-offender registry and failed to inform his probation agent of address or employment changes; (2) was not physically limited from informing his probation agent of his whereabouts; (3) admitted during the revocation hearing that his actions violated his probation agreement; and (4) was warned prior to that hearing of the consequences of these violations. Because Craig knew of the restrictions imposed on him and understood the consequences of noncompliance, we conclude he acted intentionally. See Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 250 (rejecting lack of intent argument where nothing physically prevented appellant's compliance with trial court instructions); Theel, 532 N.W.2d at 267 (concluding evidence was sufficient to find intentional violation because offender knew behavior exceeded limitations imposed by probation). Under these circumstances, the trial court's failure to make express findings was not an abuse of discretion.