Supreme Court Digest: Feb. 11

Listen to this article

Civil Opinions

State Employee Torts – Indemnification

This action arose from a putative class action that respondent below filed against respondent in federal court. In his complaint, respondent below alleged that respondent, a former employee of appellant the Minnesota Department of Human Services, had violated the federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. Respondent sought defense and indemnification from DHS pursuant to Minn. Stat. sec. 3.736, subd. 9. DHS denied his request, concluding that respondent’s actions were outside the scope of his employment. Respondent filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, seeking review of DHS’s decision. The Court of Appeals, holding that DHS’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, reversed and directed DHS to grant respondent’s request. The Supreme Court held that, because the “trier of fact” that determines whether a state employee was acting within the scope of employment under Minn. Stat. sec. 3.736, subd. 9, is not the Court of Appeals or the agency, the Court of Appeals did not have subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the agency’s decision. Vacated.

A13-0936 Nelson v. Schlener (Court of Appeals)

Click for full text

Criminal Opinions

Sentencing – Correction

Appellant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and received a stayed 98-month sentence together with a conditional-release term of 5 years. Appellant violated the terms of his supervised release, and the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) revoked his release and ordered him to serve the remaining portion of his executed sentence in custody. The DOC recalculated the expiration date of appellant’s conditional-release term to reflect the time he had spent in custody for his supervised-release violations. Appellant filed a motion to correct his sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, alleging that the DOC had illegally extended his conditional-release term. In response to appellant’s motion, the State asserted the District Court lacked jurisdiction under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, to review the Commissioner of Correction’s administrative decision implementing the sentence imposed by the District Court because the court could not grant the relief requested. The District Court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the matter because Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, authorizes review of the DOC’s administrative decisions implementing a sentence, and then denied the motion to correct appellant’s sentence on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court held that judicial review of an administrative decision of the Commissioner of Corrections implementing a sentence imposed by the District Court may not be obtained by filing a motion to correct a sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9; instead, review may be obtained by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Minn. Stat. sec. 589.01. Affirmed as modified.

A13-1332 State v. Schnagl (Court of Appeals)

Click for full text

Test Refusal – Due Process

Minnesota law makes it a crime for a driver to refuse a request to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol if certain conditions are met, including that the driver has been validly arrested for driving while impaired. The question presented in this case was whether Minn. Stat. sec. 169A.20, subd. 2 (“test refusal statute”), violated appellant’s right to due process under the United States or Minnesota Constitutions by criminalizing his refusal to consent to an unconstitutional search. The District Court held the test refusal statute was unconstitutional as applied to appellant, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court held that (1) because a warrantless search of appellant’s breath would have been constitutional as a search incident to a valid arrest, charging appellant with violating Minn. Stat. sec. 169A.20, subd. 2, for refusing to take a breathalyzer in this circumstance did not implicate a fundamental right; and (2) because Minn. Stat. sec. 169A.20, subd. 2, is a reasonable means to a permissive object, it does not violate appellant’s right to due process under the United States or Minnesota Constitutions. Affirmed.

A13-1245 State v. Bernard (Court of Appeals)

Click for full text

Orders

Attorney Discipline – Indefinite Suspension

Patrick J. Nolan, III, is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for 3 years.

A15-0137 In re Nolan

Click for full text

Rules of Criminal Procedure – Amendment

Amendments previously proposed to the Rules of Criminal Procedure related to the implementation of electronic filing and service in the appellate courts are prescribed and promulgated to be effective March 1, 2015.

ADM10-8049 Order Regarding Proposed Amends. to R. Crim. P.

Click for full text