Opinion ID: 2510443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court Made Findings of Fact Sufficient to Support Its Extension of Orr's Probation.

Text: ¶36 Applying the above rules to the facts of this case, we hold that the district court had authority to extend Orr's probation and that it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. First, although the district court did not specifically designate a portion of its order as written findings of fact, the record adequately reflected the evidence the district court relied on and its reasons for extending probation. It is clear from the record that the district found that Orr had violated the condition of his probation requiring him to pay restitution to his victims. For example, at the hearing the district court stated that Orr hasn't paid a nickel on his restitution since he thought probation was over. Then, in its written order, the district court stated The defendant's failure to pay the May and June installments of his restitution underscores the fact that the defendant is induced to repay his victims only when he is in the shadow of probation and the threat of incarceration is held over him. ¶37 Second, although the district court did not explicitly find that Orr's violation was willful, such a finding was implicit from its order, which stated that [Orr] is induced to repay his victims only when he is in the shadow of probation and the threat of incarceration is held over him and [Orr's] only incentive to continue making restitution payments is to avoid his probation being revoked. This language further shows that the court determined that other alternatives for punishing Orr were inadequate. Although it could be argued that the district court's failure to mention the possibility of bench probation [9] demonstrates that it did not consider other alternatives, in Black, the Supreme Court held that a district court is not required to explain on the record its consideration and rejection of alternatives to incarceration. 471 U.S. at 616. ¶38 We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in extending Orr's probation.