STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1199

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Carlos M. Wadsworth,
Appellant.

Filed June 5, 2007

Affirmed

Stoneburner, Judge

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, Suite 101, 223 East Seventh Street, Crookston, MN 56716 (for respondent)

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.

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

STONEBURNER, 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 appellant’s confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation, we affirm.

FACTS

In October 2003, appellant Carlos M. Wadsworth pleaded guilty to first-degree refusal to submit to chemical testing. In November 2003, the district court sentenced Wadsworth to 54 months in prison, but the district court granted him a stay of execution and placed him on probation for seven years. At sentencing, the district court stated:

Well, I will tell you, Mr. Wadsworth, that I’ve 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 you’re looking at 54 months in prison if you violate the terms and conditions of your probation. And I don’t think you’re going to be given too much slack by probation or this Court if you violate the terms and conditions of your probation. You’re very fortunate to get this type of plea agreement in this case.

As a part of his probation, the district court ordered Wadsworth to serve 180 days in the local jail, to pay a $1,000 fine and other costs, to abstain from the use of alcohol and other controlled substances, and to remain law-abiding.

In June 2004, the state initiated a probation-revocation proceeding against Wadsworth alleging that he failed to report to probation, to pay fees and other court-ordered financial obligations, to complete victim-empathy classes, and to abstain from alcohol use. The matter was continued so that Wadsworth could finish his victim-empathy classes and get current on his fees and court-ordered obligations.

In June 2005, while, due to a series of continuances, this probation-revocation matter was pending in district court, Wadsworth was convicted of two driving-while-impaired (DWI) offenses in North Dakota for incidents that occurred earlier that year. In April 2006, the district court revoked Wadsworth’s probation. At the revocation hearing, the district court told Wadsworth:

I’m 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.

The district court executed Wadsworth’s 54-month sentence, and this appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

Wadsworth argues that the district court abused its discretion because the evidence does not establish that at the time of the revocation, the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. “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. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602, 605 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted). Before probation can be revoked, the district court must (1) identify the specific condition(s) of probation that the defendant has violated; (2) find that the violation was inexcusable or intentional; and (3) determine whether the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation. Id. at 606.

Wadsworth does not challenge the fact that he received two DWI convictions in North Dakota while he was on probation for the Minnesota offense. Rather, he argues that the district court should have allowed him to continue with probation because he “was willing to engage in whatever psychological or chemical dependency treatment that the court felt was appropriate.” But the record supports the court’s determination that because Wadsworth is a risk to public safety, the need for his confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Wadsworth’s probation.

Affirmed.