Minnesota Probation & Parole Violation Lawyer & Defense Attorney

Minneapolis Probation Violation Attorney

A probationary sentence is a stayed, deferred, or a suspended jail sentence, which facilitates in allowing the convicted individual to continue to lead a normal life.

A probation allows an individual to serve his or her sentence on conditions of probation, rather than serving the entire sentence  in jail, the workhouse, or prison, provided they adhere to all the terms of the probation.  In the instance of a convicted individual violating the terms of the probation however, then there is a very high probability of consequences which could lead to serious legal problems such as completion of the jail sentence, prison, and more serious penalties.

Only an experienced and qualified Probation Violation Attorney such as Lynne Torgerson can understand the legal consequences, as well as your fears and stress, associated with your case.  She is known to vigorously battle for the cause of her clients and to ensure that all your probation violation issues are resolved.  With over 29 years of experience in the legal field, Ms. Torgerson has realized that the consequences of a probation violation can be quite challenging for the defendant, as well as his/her family, and this is one reason why she works so diligently on your behalf.

Probation Violation Defense Lawyer

Minnesota Probation Violation Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson, a lawyer of excellence and experience of over 29 years, can represent you if you or your loved one have been charged with a violation of probation, in all counties in the State of Minnesota.  Please note, a violation of probation may not automatically result in a probation revocation.  A court must first determine whether there was a probation violation or not, whether the violation was intentional or inexcusable, and, third, and most importantly, whether the policies favoring probation are outweighed by the need for incarceration.  Typically, in Minnesota, there are two (2) court date for an alleged probation violation.  The first is an admit or deny hearing.  If a person admits the violation, the court will proceed to sentencing, hopefully pursuant to an agreement with the prosecution.  If there is no agreement and no admittance, then the case is scheduled for a contested hearing.  At this hearing, the court will determine the above mentioned factors, and, proceed to the imposition of sentence, again, sometimes pursuant to an agreement with the State.

Non-adherence to the terms of the probation could be due to a number of reasons.  While it is a probability that the violation or non-adherence was due to miscommunication, there is also a probability that the violation was due to the involvement of the defendant in a different crime, or the failure to complete a condition of probation, testing positive on a UA, failing to pay restitution, failure to keep appointments, etc. At a hearing, it is the defendant’s decision whether or not he admits or denies the occurrence of the violation.

The severity of the penalties for violating probation primarily depends on the type and extent of the violation(s).   Some of the common penalties include the imposition of additional jail or prison time, treatment, extra fines, and extension of the term of probation.

Parole Violation Defense

Minnesota Probation Violation Lawyer Lynne Torgerson, a lawyer of excellence and experience of over 29 years, can represent you if you have been charged with a parole violation.  A parole violation is generally classified as a technical violation or a direct violation. If the parole violation was due to a miscommunication or confusion, then it is considered as a technical parole violation. However, if the parole was deliberately violated then it is considered as a direct violation. Whatever be the reason for your violation of the terms of the parole, it is highly recommended that you seek the services of a professional Parole Defense Lawyer as soon as possible.

It is good to know that even in the instance of a probation or parole violation, an individual enjoys several legal rights, and, that there are usually several things that can be achieved to minimize consequences, and/or to litigate the case on your behalf.  However, it is a fact that a majority of the individuals involved in the probation or parole violation cases are not aware of such rights.  This is one reason why you need to hire the services of a reputed probation and parole violation lawyer such as Lynne Torgerson.

When you find yourself in a legal ambush, finding the right Minnesota probation and parole violation defense lawyer could be your first step towards the attainment of your legal objectives. Please call the law office of Lynne Torgerson to request a free consultation to handle your legal problems.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson secures quashing of warrant for  not completing probation and moving out of State of Minnesota and, discharge from probation

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson got an eight (8) year old warrant quashed for a client who lived out of state, and also obtained his discharge from probation.  Ms. Torgerson accomplished this without having to have her client come back to Minnesota for court.

Initially, Ms. Torgerson’s client’s misdemeanor DWI charged was reduced to a misdemeanor careless driving.  Then, prior to completing his probationary requirements, he had to move to another state to attend college.  Because he had not completed his probation requirements, in 2011, a warrant was issued for his arrest.  While living in another state, around six (6) years later, he was convicted of DWI.  In connection with the DWI in another state, he served three (3) days in jail, completed a MADD Victim Impact class, and Ms. Torgerson had him complete an additional sixteen (16) hours of community service.  Ms. Torgerson worked out a resolution whereby his out of state three (3) days jail could be applied to the 2 days STS Minnesota required, have the MADD class apply to his Minnesota 1 Day Program requirement, and use the extra day of jail and 2 days community service apply to the Minnesota probation violation.  Consequently, he was deemed to have satisfied his Minnesota sentence, the warrant was quashed,  his Minnesota probation deemed conditions satisfied, and he was discharged from probation without having to return to Minnesota for court.  Some would say the case could not have come out better.  Well done Ms. Torgerson!

Minnesota Probation Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins early discharge from probation 

Prior to hiring Ms. Torgerson, Ms. Torgerson’s client had pleaded guilty to felony third degree controlled substance crime, out of the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota.  Fortunately, he had obtained a stay of imposition of sentence.  He was however, sentenced up to 10 years on probation.  For the next two (2) years, Mr. Torgerson’s client had done exceptionally well on probation.  He had remained law abiding, he had attended AA as required, and he had remained drug and alcohol free and passed his UAs.  Ms. Torgerson’s client therefore wanted to request an early discharge for release.  Accordingly, he retained Ms. Torgerson to bring a motion to terminate probation early.  This type of motion is not uncommon, and, can be won.  Ms. Torgerson filed said motion, obtained and hearing date, and had her client testify.  Her client made a very good impression on the judge.  Consequently, the court granted Ms. Torgerson’s client’s motion to terminate his probation early.  At that time, his conviction was also reduced to a misdemeanor as a matter of law.  Well done Mr. Client and Ms. Torgerson!

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Probation revocation reversed for trial court failure to make requisite findings 

After pleading guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant received 15 years of probation.  After defendant violated his conditions of probation, the trial court revoked his probation.  Defendant appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support the revocation of defendant’s probation, noting that the trial court failed to use the terms intentional or inexcusable in describing the violations.  Reversed and remanded.

State v. Hill, A19-0313, Dakota County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Statements made during a parole revocation hearing admissible at later trial

Where a defendant challenged the trial court’s refusal to exclude incriminating statements that he made at a State parole revocation hearing, the judgment is affirmed because the defendant voluntarily testified after being advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent, and there were no other dangers of unfair prejudice.  Judgment is affirmed.

United States v. Daniels, 18-3049, appealed from the Western District of Arkansas, Erickson, J.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Commentary:  Important reminder:  you have a right to remain silent and any statements you make may be used against you in court.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Revocation of probation in 1st degree felony DWI  

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of 1st degree driving while intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to a plea agreement.  In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant received a stayed sentence and seven years of probation.  After multiple violations, the trial court revoked defendant’s probation.  Defendant appealed, challenging the revocation and his sentence.  Noting the findings that defendant exhausted the resources available to him and was not amenable to supervision in the community, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court made adequate findings supporting the revocation of defendant’s probation.  Affirmed.

State v. Dahl, A19-0096, Lake of the Woods County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  In probation violation hearing test is whether the need for confinement outweigh policies favoring probation 

Defendant challenged the trial court’ decision to revoke his probation and to execute his prison sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation because the court did not inquire as to whether defendant had the ability to pay restitution, and because defendant had completed chemical dependency treatment.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation, noting that defendant had lied to probation about the existence of a daughter’s school play, and that the failure to pay restitution was not the determining factor.  Affirmed.

State v. Poignee, A19-0293, Crow Wing County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Hearsay admitted in revocation of supervised release hearing for new forgery case 

Defendant appealed from the revocation of her supervised release, following her arrest for forgery.  At the revocation hearing, defendant’s probation officer read from the police report of her arrest.  A hearsay objection and right of confrontation objection was not made at that time.  On appeal, defendant argued this gave her the right to confront the report’s author.

Where the defendant failed to invoke her purported right to question the arrest report’s author, she waived her argument on appeal.  Judgment is affirmed.

United States v. Gorsline, 18-3708, appealed from the Southern District of Iowa, per curiam.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Juvenile did not violate probation

Defendant contended that the trial court had erroneously adjudicated him delinquent for having unsupervised conduct with a younger juvenile because the allegedly younger juvenile was actually one year older than defendant and resided in the same group home where defendant had been placed by the trial court.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, noting that the other juvenile was older than defendant and concluded that the trial court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous.  Reversed and remanded.

In re Welfare of SRL., A19-0519, Houston County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  Execution of probationary sentence pursuant to plea agreement

Plea agreement in probation revocation proceedings called for execution of sentence in exchange for dismissal of new charge.  Consistent with this agreement, the trial court executed defendant’s sentence, even though he had fewer than 9 months left to serve in prison.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by honoring his request to execute his sentence, because Minn. Stat. 609.135, subd. 7 prohibits it.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that section 609.135, subd. 7 of the Minnesota Statutes prohibited execution of defendant’s sentence.  Reversed and remanded.

State v. Trass, A19-0479, Hennepin County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Contact Us Today For A Free Consultation

Our Minneapolis Probation Violation Lawyers represent clients throughout Minnesota including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Twin Cities, Edina, Eden Prairie, Bloomington, Burnsville, Minneapolis, St Paul, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Coon Rapids, Blaine, Maplegrove, Maplewood, Woodbury and Plymouth. Including, but not limited to, the counties of Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Anoka County, Dakota County,Washington County, Sherburne County, Wright County, Dakota County and Washington County, Carver County, Scott County, Wright County, Sherburne County, Isanti County,Chisago County and Stearns County. Lynne Torgerson represents clients throughout the entire State of Minnesota.

Contact Lynne Torgerson today at 612-339-5073 to schedule your free consultation. Our law firm can help you with our qualified Probation Violation Lawyer in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

DISCLAIMER: Throughout this website, there are statements on various laws. Please note that this is not legal advice, and no reliance should be taken thereon, and an attorney client relationship is not established hereby. Further, please note that these legal statements may not currently be up to date, because the laws can change daily, and this website does not. Thus, you will always need to actually retain a lawyer to establish an attorney client relationship, to rely upon any advice, and to obtain up-to-date legal research. Thank you.