State of Minnesota v. Prince Lashone Holt ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                         This opinion will be unpublished and
    may not be cited except as provided by
    Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
    STATE OF MINNESOTA
    IN COURT OF APPEALS
    A13-1286
    State of Minnesota,
    Respondent,
    vs.
    Prince Lashone Holt,
    Appellant.
    Filed September 15, 2014
    Affirmed
    Connolly, Judge
    Hennepin County District Court
    File Nos. 27-CR-11-39450, 27-CR-12-13749
    Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
    Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Lee W. Barry, Assistant County
    Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
    Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sean M. McGuire, Assistant
    Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
    Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
    Hooten, Judge.
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    CONNOLLY, Judge
    Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that the district court
    abused its discretion by revoking his probation because his attendance at the treatment
    program from which he was discharged had not been ordered by the district court.
    Because we see no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
    FACTS
    In July 2012, appellant Prince Lashone Holt pleaded guilty to a December 2011
    violation of a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order (DANCO) and to an April 2012 felony
    domestic assault. In October 2012, appellant was sentenced to 30 months, stayed, for the
    assault and to 33 months, stayed, for the DANCO violation, to run consecutively. He
    was placed on probation; conditions included 365 days in the workhouse and following
    the recommendations of a chemical assessment.            Because the chemical assessment
    recommended in-patient treatment and aftercare, appellant was furloughed to the
    Professional Counseling Center (PCC) for treatment.
    In December 2012, appellant violated a condition of his probation by failing to
    return to PCC. In January 2013, he was arrested on charges of loitering with intent and
    possession of drug paraphernalia. Following a hearing, his furlough was revoked, and he
    was ordered to the workhouse to complete the 365 days, with a furlough to complete
    treatment when a place became available. In February 2013, he was furloughed to the
    Recovery Resource Center (RRC); in March, he was discharged from RRC for having a
    positive drug test and leaving without staff approval.
    2
    In April 2013, the district court revoked appellant’s probation and executed the
    aggregate 63-month prison sentence. The district court inadvertently sentenced appellant
    on the April 2012 felony domestic assault before sentencing him on the December 2011
    DANCO violation. Appellant moved for modification of his sentence, which respondent
    State of Minnesota (the state) agreed was appropriate. The district court then resentenced
    appellant first to 33 months in prison on the DANCO violation, then to a year and a day
    on the domestic assault, to be served consecutively.
    Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that the district court
    abused its discretion because the probation condition appellant violated was not a
    condition imposed by the district court.1
    DECISION
    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. Austin, 
    295 N.W.2d 246
    , 249-50 (Minn. 1980).              In revoking
    probation, a district court must designate the specific condition or conditions alleged to
    have been violated, find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable, and find that
    the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation. 
    Id. at 250
    . The
    district court made the requisite findings in an exceptionally detailed and well-written
    opinion.
    [Appellant] . . . violated the terms of his probation for
    failure to successfully complete treatment on six different
    1
    We have considered the issues raised in appellant’s pro se supplemental brief and find
    them to be without merit.
    3
    occasions between 2003 and 2008. His continuing refusal to
    comply with the terms of his probation, coupled with his
    continued use of controlled substances creates significant
    concerns for the public at large.
    . . . Chemical dependency is not the reason for this
    [c]ourt’s decision to revoke [appellant’s] probation. In this
    case, this Court believes the central issue is one of non-
    compliance with probation. [Appellant’s] repeated failure to
    successfully complete treatment and aftercare has led to
    escalating criminal activity, and in turn, an increased risk to
    public safety. . . . [F]or those reasons, this Court believes that
    confinement is necessary to protect the public from further
    criminal activity by [appellant].
    . . . [Appellant] has twelve felony convictions and
    numerous more misdemeanor convictions on his record.
    Although [he] has been placed on felony probation in the
    past, he has never successfully completed a felony
    probationary term. In addition, [he] has been ordered to
    complete some sort of treatment program on more than
    twenty occasions.
    . . . [O]ver the strenuous objections of the State, this
    Court gave [appellant] yet another opportunity to return to
    and successfully complete treatment rather than going to
    prison. [He] was furloughed . . . on February 19, and he
    responded to the Court’s leniency and faith in him by
    absconding from the treatment facility once on February 27,
    2013, and then for a final time only six days later, on
    March 5, 2013.
    ....
    [Appellant] has blatantly demonstrated that he is not
    amenable to probation by continually failing to abide by the
    terms and conditions placed upon him [by] this Court;
    specifically [his] continuing and repeated failure to attend and
    successfully complete treatment and after-care. [Appellant]
    has consciously and intentionally ignored or disregarded
    repeated court orders, as well as his probation officer’s rules.
    [Appellant’s] choices are not a series of technical violations
    of a probationary sentence, but one of an individual clearly
    demonstrating anti-social behavior and a lack of respect for
    the laws and rules of our society.
    4
    Appellant argues that the condition that he complete treatment at RCC was not
    actually imposed by the court. Appellant’s only legal support for this argument is an
    unpublished decision of this court and has no precedential value.           See Minn. Stat.
    § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).2 This court does not address allegations unsupported by legal
    analysis or citation. Ganguli v. Univ. of Minn., 
    512 N.W.2d 918
    , 919 n.1 (Minn. App.
    1994). Therefore, the issue is not properly before us.
    Appellant argues in the alternative that, while the district court mandated the Rule
    25 evaluation that led to his treatment at PCC, the district court did not mandate the
    evaluation that led to his treatment at RCC. But, at the first hearing, the district court not
    only revoked appellant’s furlough and ordered him to the workhouse for the remainder of
    the 365 days; it also said, “I will authorize another furlough for you to go into the group
    sober housing . . . with . . . mental health care . . . as soon as possible. . . . And you are
    ordered to successfully complete the treatment – or the aftercare you’re going to be doing
    there and the mental health part of it.” Appellant agreed to these terms.
    He went to the workhouse, and his probation officer looked for an appropriate
    facility that would provide both chemical-dependency treatment and mental-health
    treatment. The probation officer testified that, to get funding at such a facility, “a
    chemical health assessment was needed, and [appellant] was referred to [RCC] which
    could provide both the structure and support based on the assessor’s recommendation.”
    2
    In any event, that case, State v. Behr, No. A04-0571, 
    2004 WL 2857571
     (Minn. App.
    Dec. 14, 2004), is distinguishable because the district court here explicitly ordered
    appellant to have a Rule 25 evaluation, while the district court in Behr declined to order
    the evaluation and left the decision to a probation officer. See 
    2004 WL 2857571
    , at *2.
    5
    But the district court, not the probation officer, imposed the requirement that appellant
    receive and complete treatment for his chemical-dependency and mental-health issues;
    RCC was selected because it provided both the chemical-dependency treatment and the
    mental-health treatment the district court ordered. Thus, appellant’s positive drug test
    while at RCC, his leaving RCC without approval, and his failure to complete RCC’s
    program were violations of a probation condition imposed by the district court.
    Affirmed.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A13-1286

Filed Date: 9/15/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021