Court of Appeals Digest: Aug. 28, 2023

Civil Nonprecedential

Breach of Contract

Liquidated Damages

Appellant construction company challenged the District Court’s ruling that a liquidated-damages clause in its contract with respondent homeowner was unenforceable and that appellant was not entitled to equitable relief. Respondent homeowner challenged the District Court’s determination that the parties entered into a valid contract. Noting that the measure of actual damages resulting from homeowner’s breach was susceptible of definite measurement, and that the contractor provision represented a 50% difference between the amount of actual and liquidated damages, the Court of Appeals concluded that the liquidated-damages provision constituted an unenforceable penalty. Affirmed.

A22-1524 Smart Constr. & Remodeling, Inc. v. Suchy (Hennepin County)

Civil Commitment

Mental Illness; Sufficiency of the Evidence

Appellant challenged an order of the District Court indeterminately committing him as a person who has a mental illness and was dangerous to the public. He argued that (1) the record did not support the District Court’s finding that he refused to accept injectable medications and lacked insight into his mental illness, (2) the District Court improperly considered his prior interest in firearms and possible future access to firearms as a basis for commitment, and (3) the record did not support the District Court’s ultimate determination that he had a mental illness and was dangerous to the public. The Court of Appeals found no clear error in the findings regarding appellant’s medications and his insight into his medical condition, concluded that it was not improper for the District Court to consider his prior interest in firearms, and found the record sufficient for the commitment determination. Affirmed.

A23-0422 In re Civil Commitment of Ramirez (Dakota County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-mother challenged the District Court’s termination of her parental rights to her child, arguing that respondent county failed to prove (1) a statutory basis for termination and (2) that termination was in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the county proved a statutory ground for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence, but the District Court failed to make adequate findings on the best-interests issue. Affirmed in part and remanded.

A23-0311 In re Welfare of Child of B.D.M. (Olmsted County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-father sought review of an order terminating his parental rights to three children, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) father failed to correct the conditions that led to out-of-home placement, (2) the county provided reasonable efforts to reunify father with his children, and (3) termination was in the children’s best interests. Noting that the record supported the District Court’s determination that father failed to correct the conditions leading to the children’s placement out of the home because he exposed, or was likely to expose, the children to chemical use, the Court of Appeals concluded that District Court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.

A23-0340 In re Welfare of Children of E.H.M. (Chippewa County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-father challenged the termination of his parental rights to one child, arguing that his due-process rights were violated because (1) the District Court conducted the trial by default and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Noting the evidence regarding father’s lack of cooperation and apparent inability to safely care for the child and how termination would serve the child’s best interests, the Court of Appeals discerned no due-process violation or prejudice occasioned by the District Court’s decision to proceed by default. Affirmed.

A23-0467 In re Welfare of Child of H.E.A. (St. Louis County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Transfer of Custody

Appellant-father challenged the decision to transfer permanent legal and physical custody of his child to foster parents, arguing that the District Court erred when it determined that respondent county made reasonable efforts to support placement of the child with father and that the District Court misapplied the law. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s undisputed factual findings underlying the best interests decision were sufficient to overcome any presumption that might favor father. Affirmed.

A23-0130 In re Welfare of Children of T.B. (Ramsey County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Transfer of Custody

In this appeal from the District Court’s transfer of legal custody rights, appellant-father argued that the District Court abused its discretion by permanently transferring sole legal custody and sole physical custody of his child to the child’s mother because it determined that: (1) the county and mother sufficiently pleaded a prima facie case of egregious harm; (2) mother properly petitioned for a transfer of permanent legal and physical custody; (3) the county provided reasonable efforts to reunite father and the child; and (4) transfer of legal and physical custody was in the child’s best interests. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion or error. Affirmed.

A23-0500 In re Welfare of Child of W.H.K. (Hennepin County)

Name Change

Minors

Applicant-mother appealed from the District Court’s order denying her application for a name change on behalf of her minor child, who identified as transgender. The Court of Appeals concluded the District Court’s failure to provide findings that indicated its consideration of relevant factors was an abuse of discretion, and that the District Court may want to consider the factors laid out in a New Jersey case, Sacklow v. Betts, 163 A.3d 367 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2017). Reversed and remanded.

A22-1758 In re Application of Kollman (Hubbard County)

Service of Process

Substitute Service

This appeal arose out of respondent’s renewal of a money judgment following the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. Appellant and respondent dissolved their marriage in September 2004, and respondent subsequently obtained six money judgments against appellant. In July 2022, respondent began the process of renewing one of the judgments, which was set to expire in September 2022. Appellant had since moved out of state and was not forthcoming about his address. As a result, respondent attempted to serve appellant with the summons and complaint to renew the judgment at several different residential and commercial addresses. Appellant moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of service, but the District Court determined that respondent effectively served appellant via substitute service at a residential address in Arizona and denied the motion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence supported the finding that substitute service was effective. Affirmed.

A23-0287 Jundt v. Jundt (Hennepin County)

Zoning

Rezoning Applications

Appellant-shop-owners challenged respondent-city’s denial of his rezoning application, arguing in part that the city’s prior erroneous grant of a tobacco license should estop the city from revoking it. The District Court granted summary judgment to city and dismissed appellants’ nonconforming use and estoppel claims. The Court of Appeals found no error, concluding that (1) city had a rational basis for denying appellants’ rezoning application; (2) the District Court did not have jurisdiction over appellants’ nonconforming use and estoppel claims; and (3) the District Court did not abuse its discretion because the city council hearing was fair, and the record was clear and complete. Affirmed.

A22-1674 Alfureedy v. City of Saint Paul (Ramsey County)

Civil Order Opinions

Domestic Relations

Child Custody; Modification

Appellant-father challenged the custody modification awarding respondent-mother sole legal and sole physical custody of their minor child and awarding him supervised parenting time. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court acted within its discretion by proceeding with the evidentiary hearing after father voluntarily disconnected from the remote hearing and mere inspection of the record revealed no prejudicial error. Affirmed.

A22-0981 Heil v. Rivard (In re Custody of E.J.H.) (Wright County)

Domestic Relations

Parenting Time; Contempt

Appellant-mother challenged the denial of her motion to hold respondent-father in constructive civil contempt for his alleged failure to allow mother unsupervised parenting time, and the denial of her motion to modify parenting time. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion, concluding that the record supported the finding that mother had not provided sufficient, credible residence information to obtain unsupervised parenting time. Affirmed.

A22-1577 Bongard v. Truchinski (Anoka County)

Criminal Precedential

Driving While Using Cell Phone

Covered Conduct

Defendant was driving his semitruck carrying a load of soybeans when he pulled out his ringing cellphone to glance at it and identify the caller—“spam.” The distraction caused defendant to veer off the roadway, tip his truck over in the ditch, and spill his cargo of beans. Defendant challenged his consequent convictions of driving with a suspended license and operating a motor vehicle while using a cellular device. He contended that the legislature’s 2021 amendment to the driver’s-license-suspension statute applied to his case and that the amelioration doctrine mandates that his driving-while-suspended conviction be vacated. He further contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of driving while using a cellular device because his conduct of glancing at his cellphone is not prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 169.475, subd. 2.

The Court of Appeals held that a motorist does not “read an electronic message” as prohibited under § 169.475, subd. 2(a)(1), or “engage in a cellular phone call” as prohibited under subd. 2(a)(2), by picking up his cellphone and viewing the caller-identification information of an incoming call. Furthermore, the legislature’s 2021 amendment to the driver’s-license-suspension statute did not decriminalize driving with a suspended license,

A22-1444 State v. Gutzke (McLeod County)

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Deficient Performance

Defendant challenged his conviction, following a guilty plea, for violating a domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO). He argued that he was deprived of his constitutional rights to due process and the effective assistance of counsel when neither the District Court nor his own attorney sought an evaluation of his competence to proceed.

The Court of Appeals held that, in a criminal case, a defense attorney’s failure to challenge a defendant’s competence to proceed is deficient representation if a reasonably skilled attorney would have doubted the defendant’s competence under the circumstances. Here, a reasonably skilled attorney would not have questioned defendant’s competence. Affirmed.

A21-0938 State v. Epps (Hennepin County)

Sentencing

Restitution

Defendant sought review of the District Court’s restitution order following his conviction for second-degree intentional murder. Defendant’s opening brief argued that the District Court erred in determining the amount of restitution for the victim’s mother because (1) the mother testified at the restitution hearing that the victim’s life-insurance proceeds paid for all funeral expenses that she submitted to the court and (2) some costs included in the restitution award were not related to the victim’s funeral or directly caused by his murder. The State argued that defendant did not comply with the procedural and timing requirements provided in Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3, and alternatively, the District Court did not err in determining the restitution amount.

The Court of Appeals held that (1) the procedural and timing requirements for a defendant challenging a restitution award under § 611A.045, subd. 3, are not jurisdictional; and (2) life-insurance proceeds that a murder victim’s family receives are not an economic benefit conferred by the defendant and should not be considered in determining restitution and the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(1).

A23-0126 State v. White (Hennepin County)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Criminal Sexual Conduct

Personal Injury

Defendant appealed from judgments of conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct against one victim and third-degree criminal sexual conduct against another victim. He argued, inter alia, that the evidence presented was insufficient to support his first-degree conviction because it did not prove that he caused personal injury to the victim and the warrant of commitment erroneously includes a conviction for a lesser-included offense of the first-degree conviction. Noting that the nurse that conducted the victim’s sexual-assault examination identified 10 physical findings of bodily harm on her body that were not present before the incident, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that defendant caused the victim personal injury using force or coercion. However, the District Court erred when it convicted defendant of a lesser-included offense of his first-degree offense against the same victim. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A22-0760 State v. Miller (Hennepin County)

Domestic Assault

Fear

Defendant challenged his conviction of domestic assault—fear, arguing that the evidence insufficiently proved that he intended to cause the victim fear of immediate bodily harm or death. Defendant also argued that it was legally inconsistent for the jury to find him guilty of domestic assault—fear while acquitting him of domestic assault—harm and disorderly conduct. Noting that, given the character of defendant’s acts, especially with the size disparity between him and the victim, the natural and probable result of defendant’s acts was causing the victim fear of immediate bodily harm from being grabbed, lifted, and dropped, and of potentially further violence, the Court of Appeals concluded that an inference of intent was the only reasonable one to be drawn from the circumstances proved. Furthermore, jury could have entered its verdict under its power of lenity to limit defendant’s punishment. Affirmed.

A22-1709 State v. Boggs (Brown County)

Identification Evidence

Show-Up

Defendant challenged his criminal-sexual-conduct conviction, arguing that the District Court plainly erred by admitting the show-up identification evidence. Noting that each of the five factors supported the reliability of the victim’s show-up identification, the Court of Appeals concluded that, because the victim’s identification of defendant was independently reliable, the District Court did not plainly err when it admitted the show-up identification evidence. Affirmed.

A22-1246 State v. Lopez Navarro (Hennepin County)

Seizure

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion

In this direct appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, defendant argued that the District Court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant challenged the District Court’s determinations regarding whether the initial investigating officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory seizure and whether the officers who conducted a search of defendant’s vehicle had probable cause to do so. The Court of Appeals concluded that the officer needed no suspicion to park the squad car and approach defendant’s stopped vehicle, and that, even if he did, the record supported the finding that the officer approached defendant’s vehicle because it had a skewed front license plate, a traffic violation. Affirmed.

A22-1295 State v. Davis (Hennepin County)

Sentencing

Downward Departures

In this appeal from a sentence for failure to register as a predatory offender, the state argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it granted defendant’s motion for a downward dispositional departure. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court properly addressed the specific offender-related circumstances of defendant’s case—including some pertinent Trog factors (remorse, conduct in court, motivation, and age) as well as factors not listed in Trog (the effect of the sentencing options on defendant’s ability to comply with the law in the long-term, and on reducing the long-term public safety risk that defendant might present). Affirmed.

A23-0408 State v. Adams (Itasca County)

Sentencing

Restitution

Defendant challenged the restitution order entered as part of his sentence for aiding and abetting intentional second-degree murder, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion by (1) refusing to reduce the restitution ordered for the victim’s mother’s lost wages because she received money from an online fundraising campaign related to her emotional distress and (2) by awarding restitution for the lost wages because those losses were not directly caused by defendant’s offense. The Court of Appeals found no basis for deducting the online fund money from defendant’s restitution obligation. Furthermore, a family member’s lost wages due to emotions distress of another family member of the deceased were compensable in restitution. Affirmed.

A23-0050 State v. Miller (Scott County)