State v. Cottew

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the three Austin/Modtland findings required before revoking probation are not required when a district court imposes an intermediate sanction, such as local incarceration, for a probation violation. The court also held that Minnesota law permits, but does not require, extending probation when intermediate sanctions are imposed, and affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Holdings

1. The Austin/Modtland findings are required before probation is revoked and the underlying sentence is executed, but are not required before a district court imposes local incarceration as an intermediate sanction for a probation violation.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing local incarceration as an intermediate sanction.
3. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.04 does not require a district court to place a defendant on probation or extend probation when imposing intermediate sanctions; Minnesota Statutes section 609.135 permits intermediate sanctions with or without probation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the three findings required by State v. Austin and State v. Modtland before revocation of probation are also required before a district court imposes local incarceration as an intermediate sanction for a probation violation.
2. Whether Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.04 requires a district court to extend or continue probation when imposing intermediate sanctions after a probation violation.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing incarceration as an intermediate sanction based on its policy of sanctioning failures to contact probation agents.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded