Subdivision 1. Commencement of Proceedings.
(A)Issuance of Revocation Warrant or Summons. Proceedings for the revocation of a stayed sentence shall be commenced by the issuance of a warrant or a summons by the court. The warrant or summons shall be based upon a written report showing probable cause to believe that the probationer has violated any of the provisions of the disposition order or committed a new offense. The written report shall include a description of the surrounding facts and circumstances upon which the request for revocation is based. The court may issue a summons instead of a warrant whenever it is satisfied that a warrant is unnecessary to secure the appearance of the probationer. The court may issue a warrant for immediate custody of the probationer if the court finds that there is probable cause to believe that the probationer has violated the terms of probation or a court order, and: (1) the probationer failed to appear after having been personally served with a summons or subpoena, or reasonable efforts to personally serve the probationer have failed, or there is a substantial likelihood that the probationer will fail to respond to a summons; or(2) the probationer or others are in danger of imminent harm; or(3) the probationer has left the custody of the detaining authority without permission of the court.(B)Contents of Warrant and Summons. Both the warrant and summons shall contain the name of the probationer, a description of the stayed sentence sought to be revoked, the signature of the issuing judge or judicial officer of the district court, and shall be accompanied by the written report upon which it was based. The amount of any bail or other conditions of release may be set by the issuing judge or judicial officer and endorsed on the warrant. The warrant shall direct that the probationer be brought promptly before the court. The warrant shall direct that the probationer be brought before a judge or judicial officer without unnecessary delay, and in any event not later than thirty-six (36) hours after the arrest exclusive of the day of arrest. The summons shall summon the probationer to appear at a stated time and place to respond to the revocation charges.(C)Place of Detention. If the probationer is under eighteen (18) years of age and is to be detained prior to the revocation hearing, the probationer may only be detained in a juvenile facility. If the probationer is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is to be detained, the probationer may be detained in an adult facility.(D)Execution or Service of Warrant or Summons; Certification. Execution, service, and certification of the warrant or summons shall be as provided in Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.03. Subd. 2. First Appearance.
(A)Advice to Probationer. A probationer who initially appears before the court pursuant to a warrant or summons concerning an alleged probation violation, shall be advised of the nature of the violation charged. The probationer shall also be given a copy of the written report upon which the warrant or summons was based if the probationer has not previously received such report. The judge, judicial officer, or other duly authorized personnel shall further advise the probationer substantially as follows:(1) the probationer is entitled to counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and if financially unable to afford counsel, one will be appointed for the probationer and, if counsel is waived, standby counsel will be appointed;(2) unless waived, a revocation hearing will be held to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the probationer violated any provisions of the disposition order or committed a new offense and that the stayed sentence should therefore be revoked;(3) before the revocation hearing, all evidence to be used against the probationer shall be disclosed to the probationer and the probationer shall be provided access to all official records pertinent to the proceedings;(4) at the hearing, both the prosecuting attorney and the probationer shall have the right to offer evidence, present arguments, subpoena witnesses, and call and cross examine witnesses, provided, however, the probationer may be denied confrontation by the court when good cause is shown that a substantial risk of serious harm to others would exist if it were allowed. Additionally, the probationer shall have the right at the revocation hearing to present mitigating circumstances or other reasons why the violation, if proved, should not result in revocation; and(5) the probationer has the right of appeal from the determination of the court following the revocation hearing.(B)Appointment of Counsel. If the probationer is financially unable to afford counsel, one will be appointed for the probationer and, if counsel is waived, standby counsel shall be appointed.(C)Conditions of Release. The probationer may be released pending appearance at the revocation hearing. In deciding whether and upon what conditions to release the probationer, the court shall take into account the conditions of release and the factors determining the conditions of release as provided by Rule 5 and Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure 6.02, subdivisions 1 and 2. The probationer has the burden of establishing that he or she will not flee or will not be a danger to any other person or the community.(D)Time of Revocation Hearing. The court shall set a date for the revocation hearing to be held within a reasonable time. If the probationer is in custody as a result of the revocation proceedings, the revocation hearing shall be held within seven (7) days. If the probationer has allegedly committed a new offense the court may postpone the revocation hearing pending disposition of the new offense whether or not the probationer is in custody.(E)Record. A verbatim record shall be made of the proceedings at the probationer's initial appearance. Subd. 3. Revocation Hearing.
(A)Hearing Procedures. The hearing shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 19.11, subdivisions 2(A)(1), (2), (3), and (4).(B)Finding of No Violation of Terms and Conditions of Disposition. If the court finds that a violation of the terms and conditions of the disposition order was not established by clear and convincing evidence, the revocation proceedings shall be dismissed, and the probationer's stayed sentence shall be continued under conditions ordered by the court.(C)Finding of Violation of Terms and Conditions of Disposition.(1) If the court finds upon clear and convincing evidence that any provisions of the disposition order were violated, or if the probationer admits the violation, the court may revoke the probationer's extended jurisdiction juvenile status. Upon revocation of extended jurisdiction juvenile status, the court shall treat the offender as an adult and may order any of the adult sanctions authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.14, subdivision 3.(2) To execute the stayed prison sentence after revocation of extended jurisdiction juvenile status, the court must make written findings that: (a) one or more conditions of probation were violated;(b) the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and(c) the need for confinement outseights the policies favoring probation.(3) If the extended jurisdiction juvenile conviction was for an offense with a presumptive prison sentence or the probationer used a firearm, and the court has made findings pursuant to clause (2), the court shall order execution of the sentence unless the court makes written findings indicating the mitigating factors that justify continuing the stay.(D)Jail Credit for Juvenile Facility Custody. If the court revokes the probationer's extended jurisdiction juvenile status, the court shall ensure that the record accurately reflects all time spent in custody in connection with the underlying offense at juvenile facilities where the level of confinement and limitations are the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility. Such time shall be deducted from adult sentence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 609.14, subdivision 3.(E)Record of Findings. A verbatim record shall be made of the proceedings at the revocation hearing and in any contested hearing the court shall make written findings of fact on all disputed issues including a summary of the evidence relied upon and a statement of the court's reasons for its determination.(F)Appeal. The probationer or the prosecuting attorney may appeal from the court's decision according to the procedure provided for appeal in Rule 21.Amended effective 1/1/2007; amended April 22, 2015, effective 7/1/2015.Comment--Rule 19
The determination of "presumptive prison" under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines should be analyzed pursuant to those guidelines.
The sanction for delay inMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.04, subd. 1(B) and 19.06, subd. 3 is modeled after Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.10, which as of January 1, 2010, is now Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.09. See In re Welfare of J.J.H., 446 N.W.2d 680, 681-82 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (order issued 66 days after hearing, 38 days after submission of written argument; because rule contains no sanction, reversal denied). See also McIntosh v. Davis, 441 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. 1989) (where alternative remedies available mandamus not appropriate to enforce time limit of Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.10 speedy trial rule).
Most of the waiver language inMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.04subd. 1(C) is taken from the 1983 version of Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 15.03.
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.04does not address the consequences of the child's testimony at a hearing or whether it can be subsequently used against the child. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968); State v. Christenson, 371 N.W.2d 228 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (impeachment); cf. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).
On continuation questions underMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.04, subd. 1(B), the victim should have input but does not have the right of a party to appear and object.
Previously, the last sentence to Rule 19.04, subd. 2(A) stated, "If witnesses are to be called, the court may continue the hearing." This statement was deleted because the committee felt it was redundant in light of the previous sentence, which allows the court to extend the time of the hearing for good cause.
Much of the content ofMinn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.04, subd. 3 is modeled after Minn. R. Crim. P 11.04 and 18.05, subd. 1. The court may employ police statements for probable cause determinations in the same manner as permitted in adult proceedings under Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.04. Also note, In re Welfare of E.Y.W., 496 N.W.2d 847, 850 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (juvenile not entitled to exclusionary hearing before decision on probable cause).
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.04, subd. 3 eliminates the need for a probable cause finding when a delinquency accusation is presented by an indictment. Accusation by indictment is uncommon, but might occur more often as a result of grand jury proceedings conducted after 1994 statutory amendments on the question of whether a child is to be accused of first degree murder in adult proceedings. See Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.007, subd. 6 (2002).
When a juvenile waives probable cause solely for the purpose of an extended jurisdiction juvenile proceeding, that waiver does not preclude the child from litigating probable cause in a subsequent prosecution on the underlying offense.
Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.04, subd. 3(B) is consistent with case law. Because the extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution question is dispositional in nature, strict application of the rules of evidence is thought to be inappropriate.
The public safety factors listed in Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.05 mirror those set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.125, subd. 4 (2002), and eliminate the need for non-offense related dangerousness. See In re Welfare of D.M.D., 607 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 2000).
Rule 19.09(B) was amended to clarify that a continuance beyond the timelines prescribed by Rule may be necessary in limited circumstances. For example, a reasonable delay may be appropriate to facilitate necessary scientific testing. The Committee adopted a "good cause" standard for use in determining whether to grant a continuance. "Good cause" is defined in case law; however, the Committee intends a strict application of the standard. Time is of the essence in an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution. Juvenile dispositional options and treatment opportunities may be lost if the trial is unnecessarily delayed. The court should consider the unique nature of extended jurisdiction juvenile when deciding whether to grant a continuance for good cause.
Following the presentation of evidence by the prosecuting attorney the child may move the court for directed relief on the grounds that the burden of proof has not been met.
Under Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.163, subd. 7 (2002) the custodial parent or guardian of the child alleged or found to be delinquent or prosecuted as an extended jurisdiction juvenile, must accompany the child at each hearing held during the delinquency or extended juvenile jurisdiction proceedings, unless the court excuses the parent or guardian from attendance for good cause shown. The failure of a parent or guardian to comply with this duty may be punished as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 260.154(2002).
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.245(2002), if a child is convicted as an extended jurisdiction juvenile, the child will be assigned points for the purpose of computing a criminal history score pursuant to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, as if the child were an adult.
In accordance with the procedure and law set forth in State v. B.Y., 659 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. 2003),Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.11, subd. 3 incorporates consideration of the Austin factors (see State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1980), into the court's determination of whether to revoke the stayed prison sentence of an EJJ probationer. This is in contrast to the decision to revoke probation in delinquency cases, for which consideration of the Austin factors is not required. In re Welfare of R.V., 702 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
The court's holding in State v. Garcia, 683 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2004) and Asfaha v. State, 665 N.W.2d 523 (Minn. 2003) found Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 5 (2002) unconstitutional to the extent it denied credit for time spent in custody in juvenile facilities. Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.11, subd. 3 has been amended to require the court to calculate and record the amount of time the probationer spent in custody at juvenile facilities where the level of confinement and limitations were the functional equivalent of a jail, workhouse, or correctional facility. Such time must be deducted from any adult sentence imposed after revocation of extended jurisdiction juvenile status.
The decision in In Re Welfare of T.C.J., 689 N.W.2d 787 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004), that Minnesota Statutes, section 260B.130, subd. 4(b) violates the Equal Protection Clause, raises an issue regarding the application of Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 19.10, subd. 3, which was modeled after the statute.
A disposition form developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission shall be completed by the court in addition to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and order.
A sentencing worksheet developed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission shall be completed by the probation department pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 27, and Minnesota Statutes, sections 609.115 and 631.20(2002). The court shall send a copy of this worksheet to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(C).
References in this rule to "child's counsel" include the child who is proceeding pro se. Minn. R. Juv. Del. P. 1.01.