Anderson v. State , A10–663.
| Decision Date | 08 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. A10–663.,A10–663. |
| Citation | 794 N.W.2d 137 |
| Parties | Robert Daniel ANDERSON, petitioner, Appellant,v.STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
Because statutory law specifically demands a minimum of $1,000 restitution for identity theft victims, the process is independent of general restitution statutes that provide for the reporting of victim losses and permit the defendant to challenge claimed amounts.
David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Andrea G.M. Barts, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, Eric M. Woodford, Assistant County Attorney, Rochester, MN, for respondent.Considered and decided by WRIGHT, Presiding Judge; LARKIN, Judge; and CRIPPEN, Judge.
*
This is an appeal from a postconviction petition, filed under Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, as a motion to correct a restitution award. Appellant argues that the district court was required to correct an earlier sentencing order that required him to pay $1,000 in restitution under the identity theft statute for each of the 28 direct victims, without a sufficient factual basis determined under statutes that govern an award of restitution. We affirm.
In September 2007, appellant Robert Anderson pleaded guilty in Ramsey County to one count of aiding and abetting identity theft of eight or more victims in violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 609.527, subd. 3(5), .05, subd. 1 (2006). The plea was in exchange for dismissal of a similar count, a guidelines sentence, and a restitution award to be determined. The district court sentenced appellant to 50 months in prison and ordered him to pay “$1,000 in restitution to each identified victim in the Ramsey County File.”
Appellant subsequently requested a restitution hearing where he challenged the court's decision to order $1,000 in restitution to each identified victim. Following appellant's guilty plea, restitution affidavits had been sent to the 28 alleged victims in the fashion that is to occur under Minn.Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1 (2006), the general restitution statute. Seven of the alleged victims returned the affidavits, and only five of the alleged victims sought restitution. The remaining 21 alleged victims did not return the affidavits.
The district court rejected appellant's challenges to the restitution award, concluding that appellant is jointly and severally liable “for restitution to all 28 direct victims of the identity theft he aided and abetted.” The court held that although 21 of the 28 affidavits were never returned by the victims, the identity theft statute does not require the direct victims to submit an affidavit detailing loss because the “identity theft statute places a lesser burden on the victim.” The court stated that under the identity theft statute, a victim need only meet the definition of “direct victim” to be entitled to restitution in the amount of $1,000. Thus, the court held that the “identity theft statute, having provided its own procedure for victim restitution, need not be read in conjunction with the restitution statutes.”
At the restitution hearing, the prosecutor noted that he wanted “to make sure that there's not a claim by [appellant] that these 28 individuals, these 28 identities, were not direct victims of these two charged offenses.” If appellant made such a claim, the prosecutor noted that he was prepared to “offer the Incident Reports to establish for the Court that these are identities possessed by [appellant] and/or his accomplices in the course of this offense.” Because appellant did not challenge any of the 28 victims' status as “direct victims,” the state presented no further evidence on the issue.
In January 2010, after the time to file a direct appeal had expired, appellant filed a notice of motion and motion to correct restitution. The postconviction court denied the rule 27.03 motion, stating that appellant failed “to set forth any argument not previously litigated in this case.” This appeal followed.
Did the district court err by imposing $1,000 of restitution per direct victim under the identity theft statute?
Under Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, a court may at any time “correct a sentence not authorized by law.” On appeal from the district court's denial of a rule 27.03 motion, this court “will not reevaluate a sentence if the [district] court's discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized by law.” State v. Stutelberg, 435 N.W.2d 632, 633–34 (Minn.App.1989) (quoting Fritz v. State, 284 N.W.2d 377, 386 (Minn.1979)).
The purpose of restitution is to compensate victims for losses incurred as a result of crime. State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W.2d 668, 671 (Minn.1999). The district court has broad discretion concerning matters of restitution as long as a sufficient factual basis underlies its decision regarding the ordered restitution. State v. Thole, 614 N.W.2d 231, 234 (Minn.App.2000). But statutory construction presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo. State v. Carufel, 783 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Minn.2010).
Minnesota law gives the victim of a crime the right to receive restitution for loss caused by a convicted criminal offender. Minn.Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1. Before ordering restitution under this statute, the district court must receive proof of the amount of loss, which the victim can provide by affidavit or by “other competent evidence.” Id. A “factual basis” must be shown for restitution to each victim. State v. Latimer, 604 N.W.2d 103, 105 (Minn.App.1999). Under the statute, proof of amount must include a description of the items lost, itemized costs, and reasons for the amount if it is “in the form of money or property.” Minn.Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1. The defendant may then challenge the restitution request by producing an affidavit “setting forth all challenges to the restitution or items of restitution, and specifying all reasons justifying dollar amounts of restitution which differ from the amounts requested by the victim or victims.” Minn.Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3 (2006).
The identity theft statute provides:
(a) A direct or indirect victim of an identity theft crime shall be considered a victim for all purposes, including any rights that accrue under chapter 611A and rights to court-ordered restitution.
(b) The court shall order a person convicted of violating subdivision 2 to pay restitution of not less than $1,000 to each direct victim of the offense.
Minn.Stat. § 609.527, subd. 4 (2006). The statute defines a “direct victim” as “any person or entity described in section 611A.01, paragraph (b), whose identity has been transferred, used, or possessed in violation of this section.” Id., subd. 1(b) (2006).
Appellant argues that the district court erred by concluding that the identity theft statute need not be read in conjunction with the restitution statutes. He contends that because the identity theft statute specifically references the restitution statutes, direct victims must submit loss affidavits as described in section 611A.04, subdivision 1, and he has the right to challenge them under section 611A.045, subdivision 3.
The identity theft statute is unambiguous and contradicts appellant's arguments; it states that the court “shall” order a person convicted of identity theft to pay restitution of “not less than $1,000 to each direct victim.” Minn.Stat. § 609.527, subd. 4. The legislature's use of the word “shall” in the statute means that restitution is mandatory in such cases. See Minn.Stat. § 645.44, subd. 16 (2006) (, “ ‘[s]hall’ is mandatory”).
Although the identity theft statute references the restitution statutes, the reference does not state a requirement for proof of loss under these statutes. Moreover, the legislature has directed that when two statutes conflict, the more specific provision controls over the more general. Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2006) ().
A review of the applicable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rey, A16-0198
...the district court "shall order" $1,000 to each direct victim of identity theft. Minn. Stat. § 609.527, subd. 4 ; Anderson v. State , 794 N.W.2d 137, 140-41 (Minn. App. 2011) (explaining that the specific provisions of the identity-theft statute, which do not require proof of loss, control ......
-
State v. Amundson
...correct a sentence, unless the district court abused its discretion or the original sentence was unauthorized by law. Anderson v. State, 794 N.W.2d 137, 139 (Minn.App.2011), review denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 2011). A sentence is unauthorized by law when it does not meet the requirements of the ......
-
Williams v. State, A16-1526
...the decision of the district court if it properly exercised its discretion and the sentence is authorized by law. Anderson v. State , 794 N.W.2d 137, 139 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 2011).A. The defendant has the burden of proof on a rule 27.03 motion to correct sentenc......
-
Pawliszko v. State
...a sentence if the [district] court's discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized by law." Anderson v. State, 794 N.W.2d 137, 139 (Minn. App. 2011) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 2011). Pawliszko argues that his sentence ......