State v. Maddox

• Decision Date: 28 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. A12–1208.,A12–1208.
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Harry NMN MADDOX, III, a/k/a Coy William Parker, III, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

825 N.W.2d 140

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Harry NMN MADDOX, III, a/k/a Coy William Parker, III, Appellant.

No. A12–1208.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Jan. 28, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to counsel at a restitution hearing held under Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045, subdivision 3(b) (2010), because the hearing is a critical stage of the state's prosecution of the defendant.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Patrick J. Ciliberto, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, Assistant

County Attorney, Shakopee, MN, for respondent.

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Anders S. Erickson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.

Considered and decided by SCHELLHAS, Presiding Judge; ROSS, Judge; and RODENBERG, Judge.

OPINION

SCHELLHAS, Judge.

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of relief regarding three restitution orders, arguing that the district court (1) violated appellant's right to counsel by not obtaining a waiver from appellant before allowing him to represent himself and (2) failed to make findings that the state proved the restitution amounts by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant also presents several pro se arguments. Because we agree that the district court violated appellant's right to counsel, we need not reach the remaining issues, and we reverse and remand for a new restitution hearing.

FACTS

This appeal involves allegations of criminal conduct in two district court files: # 70–CR–11–19238 in which respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Harry Maddox with two felony counts of check forgery under Minn.Stat. § 609.631, subd. 2 (2002), and one count of issuing a dishonored check under Minn.Stat. § 609.535, subd. 2 (2002); and # 70–CR–11–20256 in which the state charged Maddox with one count of offering a forged check under Minn.Stat. § 609.631, subd. 3 (2010), and one count of theft under Minn.Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(1) (2010). In the complaint in file # 70–CR–11–20256, the state alleged that “[f]rom May, 2011 through August, 2011, [Maddox] has written and cashed fraudulent checks worth $4,815.05 with twelve different victims in various counties in the State of Minnesota.”

In November 2011, at a plea-and-sentencing hearing, Maddox entered a plea agreement that included the following terms: “In 70 CR 11–20256–pg ct 1; dismiss other count; ... dismiss 70 CR 11–19238; exec 13 months to comm'r; CTS; rest'n study on both files, all cts.” ¹ (Emphasis added.) And Maddox's counsel stated that the plea agreement included the following:

[O]n ... 70–CR–11–20256 [Maddox] would plead guilty to Count I.... [T]he remaining Count II would be dismissed. And the file embodied by 70–CR–11–19238 would also be dismissed.

The parties agreed to a downward departure of 13 months executed to the Commissioner of Corrections....

There would be a restitution determination made by the commissioner ... on all counts on both files.

(Emphasis added.)

Maddox pleaded guilty to one count of felony check forgery in # 70–CR–11–20256. The district court accepted Maddox's plea, dismissed the remaining counts in both files, and sentenced Maddox to 13 months' imprisonment. The following discussion ensued regarding Maddox's restitution obligation:

COURT: ... And then corrections is directed to complete a restitution study to establish the amount of restitution that's to be paid to the victims of this offense.

MADDOX: Thank you, Your Honor.

....

PROSECUTOR: And, Judge, just to make sure, in ... file [# 70–CR–11–19238], it was agreed [Maddox] would also pay restitution to any victim in that one.

COURT: That's my understanding.

On March 15, 2012, the district court issued restitution orders, involving three separate victims, in the amounts of $2,020.65, $164.90, and $3,845.87, totaling $6,031.42. Each of the restitution orders stated: “[I]f you dispute the amount listed above, you have the right to challenge this restitution order by filing a written request with the Court Administrator within 30 days of receiving this order.”

Maddox timely challenged the restitution orders under Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b), which permits a defendant to challenge restitution at a restitution hearing. Maddox appeared at the restitution hearing without counsel. At no time during the hearing did the district court or the prosecutor inform Maddox of his right to counsel, and Maddox did not waive the right.

This appeal follows.

ISSUE

Did Maddox have a right to counsel at the restitution hearing?

ANALYSIS

Arguing that he had a constitutional right to counsel at the restitution hearing that he did not waive, Maddox seeks vacation of restitution orders and a remand to the district court for a new restitution hearing.

Right to Counsel

Maddox argues that the restitution hearing held under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(b), was a critical stage of his prosecution and that the district court violated his right to counsel by conducting the hearing without first obtaining a waiver of his right to counsel. We agree.

The Minnesota Constitution provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.” Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. Likewise, “[t]he Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that, ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... have the assistance of counsel for his defence.’ ” State v. Borg, 806 N.W.2d 535, 545 (Minn.2011) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. VI); seeU.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (“No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....”).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[t]he purpose of the right to counsel is to protect the accused from a conviction resulting from his own ignorance of his legal and constitutional rights.” State ex rel. Norgaard v. Tahash, 261 Minn. 106, 113, 110 N.W.2d 867, 872 (1961). Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has held that “the core purpose of the counsel guarantee is to assure aid at trial, when the accused is confronted with both the intricacies of the law and the advocacy of the public prosecutor,” United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188–89, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 2298, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984)(quotation omitted), “and thereby to assure fairness in the adversary criminal process,” United States v. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 153–54, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 2567, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006) (quotation omitted). Cf. State v. Brist, 812 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Minn.2012) (“Supreme Court precedent on matters of federal law, including the interpretation and application of the United States Constitution, is binding on this court.”).

A criminal defendant's right to counsel applies to “ ‘critical stages of the proceedings.’ ” State v. Krause, 817 N.W.2d 136, 144 n. 6 (Minn.2012) (quoting United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1931, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)). “[C]ritical stages” are “proceedings between an individual and agents of the State ... whether formal or informal, in court or out, that amount to trial-like confrontations, at which counsel would help the accused in coping with legal problems or meeting his adversary.” Rothgery v. Gillespie Cnty., Tex., 554 U.S. 191, 212 n. 16, 128 S.Ct. 2578, 2591 n. 16, 171 L.Ed.2d 366 (2008) (quotations and citation omitted). A characteristic of a critical stage is that “certain legal rights may be lost if not exercised at this stage.” Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 135, 88 S.Ct. 254, 257, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967).

The United States Supreme Court has previously noted that “sentencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding.” Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 1205, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977). This court has previously noted that “ ‘payment of court-ordered restitution’ ” is part of a criminal “ ‘sentence.’ ” State v. Hughes, 742 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Minn.App.2007) (quoting Minn.Stat. § 609.10, subd. 1(5) (2004)), aff'd758 N.W.2d 577 (Minn.2008). But whether a restitution hearing under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(b), is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding to which the right to counsel applies is an issue of first impression in Minnesota.

Here, the district court issued three restitution orders in March 2012, approximately four months after Maddox's sentencing hearing and after the expiration of Maddox's 90–day deadline for a direct appeal from his sentence. SeeMinn. R.Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(a) (providing that defense appeal must be filed “within 90 days after final judgment or entry of the order being appealed”); State v. Hughes, 758 N.W.2d 577, 578, 581 (Minn.2008) (holding that 90–day time period begins to run when defendant's “sentence of incarceration and general restitution obligation [is] announced,” even when “the amount of restitution [is] determined at a later date”); State v. Borg, 823 N.W.2d 352, 355 (Minn.App.2012) (following Hughes, holding that “a later-issued restitution order does not extend the 90–day time period that a defendant has to file a direct appeal from his sentence”), review granted (Minn. Jan. 15, 2013); cf.Minn.Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1(b) (2010) (permitting district court to “amend or issue an order of restitution after the sentencing or dispositional hearing”). Moreover, a defendant who fails to timely challenge restitution under section 611A.045, subdivision 3(b), may not challenge restitution in a postconviction-relief petition. SeeMinn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b) (“A defendant may not challenge restitution after the 30–day time period has passed.”); Mason v. State, 652 N.W.2d 269, 273 (Minn.App.2002) (declining to address merits of defendant's postconviction-relief petition because “district court properly determined that [defendant]'s postconviction challenge to the restitution order was untimely”), review denied (Minn. Dec. 30, 2002); see also State v. Henry, 809 N.W.2d...