Court of Appeals Digest: Feb. 20, 2024

Civil Precedential

Assisted Living Facilities

Appropriate Care

In this certiorari appeal, relator, an assisted living facility, challenged the Commissioner of Health’s determination that relator violated both Minn. Stat. § 144G.91, subd. 4, by failing to provide appropriate care to a resident; and § 144G.91, subd. 8, by committing maltreatment under § 626.5572, subds. 15, 17.

The Court of Appeals held that an assisted living facility, as defined under § 144G.08, subd. 7, is not relieved of its obligations to a resident under Minn. Stat. ch. 144G when a hospice provider, as defined in § 144A.75, subd. 5, begins providing hospice services to that resident. Affirmed.

A23-0678 In re Correction Orders Issued to Wealshire of Bloomington (Minn. Dep’t of Health)

Civil Nonprecedential

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Termination of Parental Rights

Appellant-parents argued that the record was insufficient to support the District Court’s termination of their parental rights and that the respondent-county should have provided them with reunification services before their parental rights were terminated. Noting that the District Court did not err in relying on evidence from an earlier termination proceeding, and that it deferred to the District Court’s credibility determinations, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that sufficient evidence supported palpable unfitness as a ground to terminate the parents’ parental rights, particularly given the parents’ continued denial that their first children had suffered physical abuse. Affirmed.

A23-1347 In re Welfare of Child of D.L.P. (Chippewa County)

Harassment Restraining Orders

Harassment

Appellant challenged the District Court’s grant of respondent’s petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that the HRO was based on conduct that did not constitute harassment as a matter of law, that respondent failed to prove that the conduct adversely affected her, and that the conduct was protected free speech. The Court of Appeals concluded that the clear-error standard applied to its review of the District Court’s factual findings, and the record was sufficient to show that appellant engaged in repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that had a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of respondent. Affirmed.

A23-0625 Houde v. Fryxell (Crow Wing County)

Civil Order Opinions

Domestic Relations

Annulment; Fraud

Appellant sought review of the District Court’s denial of his petition for annulment of the parties’ marriage and its determination that certain property was nonmarital. Appellant argued that the parties’ marriage was voidable, as respondent had obtained his consent to marry by fraud solely to achieve residency in the United States. Noting that appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of fraud or that the parties failed to cohabitate as husband and wife, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not clearly err in ruling that the perquisites for a fraud-based annulment were missing. Affirmed.

A23-0622 Saco v. Bautista (Hennepin County)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Batson Challenges

Prima Facie Case

Defendant challenged his conviction for second-degree felony murder, arguing that the prosecutor’s reason for striking a juror was race-based and the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during cross-examination and closing argument. Noting that defendant did not point to any facts in the record that raise dan inference of discrimination, but rather argued that the absence of facts showing a motivation to strike created the inference, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not err in denying defendant’s Batson challenge. Furthermore, any alleged prosecutorial errors did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. Affirmed.

A23-0155 State v. Chamberlain (Hennepin County)

Illegal Ammunition Possession

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant contended that (1) the state failed to present sufficient evidence to convict him of felon-in-possession of ammunition; (2) he did not intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel; and (3) his three gross-misdemeanor sentences must be reduced to 364 days in jail. Noting that officers observed the ammunition in the open ashtray directly next to the driver’s seat in a vehicle that defendant owned, the Court of Appeals concluded that the state presented sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of felon-in-possession of ammunition. Furthermore, defendant validly waived his right to counsel, but the gross-misdemeanor sentences must be reduced to 364 days. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A23-0011 State v. Oneil (Itasca County)

Plea Withdrawal

Adequate Factual Basis

Defendant pleaded guilty to violating a domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO) after admitting to contacting the protected person. Defendant appealed her guilty plea, arguing it was not accurate because it was not supported by an adequate factual basis. Noting that defendant admitted that she was aware of the DANCO, that she knew the DANCO prohibited contact with the victim, and that she contacted the victim in violation of the DANCO while knowing that she was not supposed to have any contact with the party, the Court of Appeals concluded that the plea was supported by a proper factual basis. However, defendant’s sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A23-0840 State v. Worrall (Hubbard County)

Probation Revocation

Need for Confinement

Defendant challenged the District Court’s order revoking his probation and executing his sentence. He argued that the District Court abused its discretion by finding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. Noting defendant’s history of engaging in felony domestic assault, his refusal to complete a domestic-abuse evaluation that would recommend a course of treatment, and his tendency to evade his probation officer demonstrated that defendant posed a threat to public safety, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s finding was supported by the record. Affirmed.

A23-1072 State v. Zavala (Watonwan County)

Warrantless Searches

Government Agents

On appeal from final judgment of conviction for multiple counts of child-pornography possession, defendant claimed that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because Facebook was acting as a government agent when it conducted a warrantless search of his account. Defendant also claimed that the District Court erred in its application of the Hernandez method of sentencing and by imposing conditional-release terms. Noting that defendant pointed to no evidence suggesting that the government knew of and acquiesced to the search conducted by Facebook, the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate that Facebook was acting as a government agent when it conducted a search of his account, and thus the private search doctrine applied. But the District Court erred in its application of the Hernandez method of sentencing and by imposing conditional-release terms for stayed sentences. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A23-0566 State v. Segura-Arroyo (Cottonwood County)

Criminal Order Opinions

Expungement

Statutory

On appeal after remand for additional factual findings, petitioner challenged the denial of his petition to expunge his conviction for felony offering a forged check in an amount greater than $2,500. Noting that the statutory list of felony offenses does not include offering a forged check, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was eligible for a statutory expungement. Affirmed.

A23-0534 M.C.Y. v. State (Hennepin County)

Right to Counsel

Waiver

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm or ammunition, arguing that this court should reverse his conviction because the District Court failed to secure a valid waiver of counsel, which is a structural error and requires a new trial. Noting that the record indicated that the District Court advised defendant of the nature of the charges and the possible punishments and repeatedly advised defendant of his right to counsel, and that defendant refused to answer directly the District Court’s questions about applying for a court-appointed attorney or representing himself, the Court of Appeals concluded that defendant validly waived his right to counsel. Affirmed.

A23-0395 State v. Moore (Stearns County)