State v. Cloutier
| Decision Date | 22 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-1270 |
| Citation | 971 N.W.2d 743 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Michael Phillip CLOUTIER, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Nicole Cornale, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sean Michael McGuire, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge.*
After sentencing appellant, the district court ordered him to pay $7,500 in restitution for funeral expenses. Appellant presently has no income but may be eligible for some Social Security income when he is released from prison. Appellant challenges the district court's restitution order, arguing that (1) the state did not carry its burden to show that he had the ability to pay restitution, (2) the district court failed to consider his ability to pay and made clearly erroneous fact findings, and (3) the district court failed to specify a payment schedule. Because it is not the state's burden to produce evidence of or prove a defendant's ability to pay restitution and because the district court adequately considered appellant's ability to pay, we affirm on those two issues. But we remand on the third issue for the district court to assign responsibility to a proper person for developing a payment schedule or structure for appellant.
Appellant Michael Phillip Cloutier stabbed his girlfriend (the victim) in the neck and chest in February 2020. When the victim later died, respondent State of Minnesota amended its original complaint to charge Cloutier with second-degree intentional murder and second-degree unintentional felony murder. Cloutier pleaded guilty to second-degree unintentional felony murder.
The district court ordered a presentence investigation. With regard to Cloutier's recent work history, the presentence-investigation report noted that he had an emergency-medical-technician certification, which he maintained for some time. He also completed the personal-care-attendant portion of a community health and medical program at a community college so that he could serve as the victim's personal care attendant. He earned $10 per hour as the victim's personal care attendant, acted as the victim's payee for Social Security Disability benefits, and accepted other temporary job assignments occasionally to increase his income. He was intermittently employed in various jobs from 2015 to 2018. However, at the time of the report, he had no income or savings.
Looking further back into Cloutier's employment history, the report noted that he was in the army for about two years before being honorably discharged. But he did not qualify for a military pension because he terminated service early. Cloutier then worked for the United States Postal Service for a short time until joining the Chicago Fire Department, where he worked for 15 years. He later liquidated his fire-department pension during a divorce settlement with his ex-wife.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court convicted Cloutier and sentenced him to 162 months in prison, at least two-thirds of which (or nine years) Cloutier would serve in prison. Cloutier was 66 years old at sentencing. The district court also ordered Cloutier to pay $7,500 in restitution to the Minnesota Crime Victims Reparations Board for its payment of funeral expenses to the victim's family.
Cloutier moved the district court to eliminate or reduce the restitution order, arguing that he will be unable to pay it. In both his supporting affidavit and his testimony at a restitution hearing, Cloutier asserted that he has no job in prison, cannot collect Social Security benefits while in prison, and has no assets, including any "retirement accounts."
The district court denied appellant's motion, upholding the restitution order and amount. It stated that there is no reason Cloutier cannot work while in prison and that "there is no deadline for the restitution to be paid in this case." And it reasoned that Cloutier would receive Social Security income and "presumably" pension income from which he could make small payments after being released from prison. Cloutier appeals.
I. Is it the state's burden to produce evidence of or prove a defendant's ability to pay restitution?
II. Did the district court adequately consider Cloutier's ability to pay?
III. Did the district court comply with the statutory requirement that it include a provision for a payment schedule in its restitution order?
Cloutier contends that the state bears the burden to prove his ability to pay restitution and that the state did not meet that burden here. He further argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately consider his ability to pay and failing to order a payment schedule. We address each of these arguments in turn. In doing so, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its ultimate order of restitution for an abuse of discretion. State v. Andersen , 871 N.W.2d 910, 913 (Minn. 2015).
The question of whether the state bears the burden of producing evidence of or proving a defendant's ability to pay requires us to analyze Minnesota Statutes section 611A.05 (2018) (the restitution statute). We review this issue of statutory interpretation de novo. See State v. Wigham , 967 N.W.2d 657, 662 (Minn. 2021) ( restitution statute). Our goal in interpreting statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature's intent. Roberts v. State , 945 N.W.2d 850, 853 (Minn. 2020). When interpreting a statute, we first determine whether it is ambiguous, meaning it is subject to "more than one reasonable interpretation." State v. Gibson , 945 N.W.2d 855, 857 (Minn. 2020) (quotation omitted). We look to the plain meaning and context of the statute's language to determine whether it is ambiguous. Id. at 857-58. If it is unambiguous, we apply the statute's plain meaning without resorting to further statutory construction. Minn. Stat. § 654.16 (2020); State v. Barrientos , 837 N.W.2d 294, 298 (Minn. 2013).
The portion of the restitution statute at issue here provides that a defendant has the initial burdens to (1) contest restitution and (2) produce evidence, in the form of an affidavit, stating his challenges to restitution. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a) (2020). If the defendant carries these burdens, the burden shifts to the state to "demonstrat[e] the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense and the appropriateness of a particular type of restitution." Id. ; see also State v. Thole , 614 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. App. 2000) ().
Applying our rules of statutory interpretation, we determine that the restitution statute unambiguously does not place the burden of producing evidence of or proving the defendant's ability to pay on the state. The statute's plain language places two burdens on the state after the defendant carries the initial burden. First, the state must "demonstrat[e] the amount of loss sustained by a victim," which simply means that the state must show the monetary value or other quantity of the victim's damages. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a). Second, the state must demonstrate "the appropriateness of a particular type of restitution." Id. (emphasis added); State v. Keehn , 554 N.W.2d 405, 407 (Minn. App. 1996) (), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 1996). Importantly, this second burden does not require the state to produce evidence of or prove the appropriateness of restitution generally. Instead, it requires the state to demonstrate that the type of restitution that is requested is an appropriate form of restitution. See, e.g. , Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, subd. 1 (2020) (); Keehn , 554 N.W.2d at 407 (). Restitution need not always be financial. It often comes in the form of reimbursing certain expenses, but in some cases, it may be, for example, repairing a damaged item or repainting a marred building. The state must demonstrate that, given the facts of the case, the type of restitution requested is appropriate. In sum, while the state bears the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss and appropriateness of the type of restitution, the state does not bear the burden of producing evidence of or proving the defendant's ability to pay restitution.
We further note that the only time the restitution statute refers to the defendant's ability to pay is when it lists factors that the district court must consider in determining whether to order restitution. Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a) (2020) . The language "income, resources, and obligations of the defendant"—what Minnesota appellate courts term the defendant's ability to pay—appears nowhere else in the statute. In other words, what the district court must consider in determining whether to order restitution and what the state must prove in advocating for restitution are different. This supports our plain-language understanding that the restitution statute does not place the burden of producing evidence of or proving the defendant's ability to pay on the state.1
And finally, as a practical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wiebrand
... ... any aspect of the contested process that followed the initial ... order and makes no argument that any such errors affected the ... ultimate outcome of the ensuing proceeding. Thus, we need not ... address the merits of these arguments. See State v ... Cloutier, 971 ... ...