Court of Appeals bars gun permit after felony plea

Listen to this article

In Brief

• Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a Dakota County ruling that ordered a sheriff to issue a permit to carry.
• Court held that a felony conviction for threats of violence remains a felony conviction even when sentenced as a gross misdemeanor.
• The decision found that a crime-of-violence conviction makes an individual ineligible to possess firearms under Minnesota law.
• The applicant plans to appeal the ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court, arguing it conflicts with longstanding sentencing practices.

A felony conviction that is a “crime of violence” under Minnesota statute makes the felon ineligible to own a firearm — even if the conviction involved is deemed to be a gross misdemeanor at sentencing.

That was the ruling in a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that reversed a ruling by the Dakota County District Court.

The case involved a lawsuit filed by Duane Charles Hippe Jr., against Dakota County Sheriff Joe Leko. In 2018, Hippe pleaded guilty to and was convicted of threats of violence. At sentencing, the district court departed downward and sentenced Hippe to 365 days’ imprisonment, with 361 days stayed for two years, four days in custody, and credit for four days served. That conviction was expunged in January 2025.

The following month, Hippe applied to Dakota County for a permit to carry a pistol. Leko wrote to Hippe letting him know that he had denied Hippe’s application based on his 2018 conviction.  “Although this conviction was deemed a gross misdemeanor at sentencing, it does not remove the fact that there is a felony conviction for a crime of violence,” Leko told Hippe.

Hippe asked Leko to reconsider, providing a copy of the district court’s expungement order. The sheriff again declined, citing a passage in the expungement order that read, “The petitioner shall continue to be prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm for the remainder of the petitioner’s lifetime if the conviction was for a crime of violence.”

In response, Hippe petitioned the district court under Minnesota Statutes section 624.714, subdivision 12(a), requesting that the court issue a writ of mandamus directing the sheriff to provide him a permit to carry a pistol. The sheriff asked the court to deny Hippe’s petition.

During a hearing regarding Hippe’s petition, he asserted that he was not convicted of felony threats of violence in 2018 because the district court had instead convicted him of a gross misdemeanor. The sheriff maintained that, although the district court had durationally departed downward in sentencing, Hippe was in fact convicted of a felony.

The district court granted Hippe’s petition for a writ of mandamus and entered judgment directing the sheriff to issue Hippe a permit to carry a pistol. The court explained, “To hold that [Hippe] was convicted of a felony … would be to subvert the [district] court’s intent not to convict [Hippe] of a felony by granting a downward durational departure after accepting [Hippe’s] guilty plea.” Hippe was also awarded attorney fees.

This past April, the Court of Appeals upheld another revocation by Leko: of the gun permit belonging to Laurence Henderson, citing two previous incidents as evidence he posed a danger to the public. In both cases, Henderson put his hand on a holstered pistol while engaging in a verbal altercation. He was only charged in one of the incidents, in which he actually pulled his pistol, and that charge was later dropped.

In reversing the lower court in the Hippe case, the Court of Appeals ruled that the district court was wrong to issue the writ of mandamus based on its determination that Hippe is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Minnesota Statutes section 624.713, subdivision 1(2), which regulates who is eligible for ownership. The court said that the statute relevant to the case was not ambiguous.

Given that a conviction occurs when a guilty plea is accepted and recorded, the court said, Hippe was convicted of felony threats of violence in 2018 when the district court accepted and recorded his guilty plea, despite the district court’s decision to depart downward in sentencing him.

“And because threats of violence is a ‘crime of violence’ under Minnesota Statute, Hippe is ineligible to possess a firearm,” wrote appellate court judge Keala C. Ede in his opinion. “Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment on its order issuing the writ of mandamus that directs the sheriff to provide Hippe a permit to carry a pistol under Minnesota Statutes section 624.714,” which grants sheriffs latitude in granting gun permits under certain conditions.

Kelly Keegan, a Minneapolis attorney who frequently handles cases involving firearm ownership, said she was surprised by the reversal.

“I don’t agree with the court’s reasoning,” she said. “If this is upheld, it will create absolute havoc. People who are in tune with this topic are very unhappy about this.”

Keegan said that her reading of the pertinent statute is that if someone is found guilty of a felony but is sentenced for a gross misdemeanor, subsequent developments should favor the latter.

“Minnesota judges have the ability to sentence felony charges as gross misdemeanors,” she said. “When someone is sentenced for a gross misdemeanor, they keep rights that they would lose if they were sentenced for a felony, including, presumably, the right to possess firearms.”

Hippe’s attorney, Nick Leverson of Leverson Budke in St. Paul, said he absolutely intends to appeal the appellate court’s decision to the state Supreme Court.

“The [court’s] decision is antithetical to the shared understanding that both criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors have regarding the significance of downward durational departures,” Leverson said.