State v. Domier

• Decision Date: 07 January 2019
• Docket Number: A18-0221
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Erik Wilford Domier, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Erik Wilford Domier, Appellant.

A18-0221

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

January 7, 2019

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

Affirmed
Hooten, Judge

Otter Tail County District Court
File No. 56-CR-16-2070

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michelle M. Eldien, Otter Tail County Attorney, Benjamin G. A. Olson, Assistant County Attorneys, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (for respondent)

Christopher J. Cadem, Carolyn A. Cadem, Cadem Law Group, PLLC, Fergus Falls, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Klaphake, Judge.^*

Page 2

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

HOOTEN, Judge

Appellant challenges his conviction of felony domestic assault, arguing that some of his prior out-of-state convictions should not have been counted as qualified domestic violence-related offenses. He also argues that the district court abused its discretion by not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.

FACTS

In early July of 2016, appellant was driving in his truck with his girlfriend, A.M.C., and their child. A.M.C. decided that she no longer wanted to be in the truck with appellant, and a struggle ensued. Appellant eventually pulled over; A.M.C. got out of the truck and started to walk or run away from the vehicle. Appellant "chased after her to bring her back," and A.M.C. fell. Appellant grabbed A.M.C. by her hair, pulling her up and scraping her legs on the gravel road.

After he was arrested a few days later, appellant was charged with felony domestic assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (2016). Subdivision four enhances a misdemeanor domestic assault under subdivision one into a felony when a defendant has two or more previous qualified domestic violence-related offense (QDVO) convictions. Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subds. 1, 4 (2016). Early the next March, appellant pleaded guilty to this charge. Before sentencing but after discovering that the two prior North Dakota convictions that enhanced the current domestic assault to a felony likely arose from the same behavioral incident, appellant filed a motion asking the district court, alternatively, to reduce his criminal history score, permit him to withdraw his guilty plea, or dismiss the

Page 3

complaint. The district court granted the motion to reduce appellant's criminal history score, denied the other two motions, and stayed the sentence pending appeal. This appeal follows.

DECISION

I. Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 16 does not contain an implicit requirement that "qualified domestic violence-related offenses" from other states must each arise out of a separate behavioral incident, such that appellant could not have legally been convicted of felony domestic assault.

Whether a particular conviction constitutes a QDVO presents a question of statutory interpretation. State v. Moen, 752 N.W.2d 532, 534 (Minn. App. 2008). "Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which we review de novo." State v. Riggs, 865 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Minn. 2015). Unless the statute is ambiguous, we apply the plain meaning of the statutory language. Moen, 752 N.W.2d at 534. "When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2018). Ambiguity exists if the statute "is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation." Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).

Similar

Appellant's main claim is that his two North Dakota convictions should have been counted as a single conviction because they arose from the same behavioral incident, and therefore he did not have two QDVOs that would enhance the assault of his girlfriend to a felony. His argument is premised on the fact that in Minnesota when multiple convictions

Page 4

arise from the same behavioral incident a defendant can only be sentenced for the most serious offense. Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1 (2018). North Dakota law contains no such prohibition. See, e.g., State v. Desjarlais, 744 N.W.2d 529, 531 (N.D. 2008). Appellant contends that because the statute defining a QDVO contains an implicit requirement that an out-of-state conviction must be "similar" to qualifying Minnesota convictions, such out-of-state convictions must necessarily arise from separate behavioral incidents as well.

To be clear, appellant was convicted under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242 (2016). Subdivision one describes a simple assault against a family member, a misdemeanor, an element that is not contested here. Id., subd. 1. Subdivision four enhances the penalty for this offence when a defendant has two or more "qualified domestic violence-related offense convictions." Id., subd. 4. Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 16, defines "qualified domestic violence-related offense" by reference to specific Minnesota statutes, "and similar laws of other states." Id. Neither Minn. Stat. § 609.2242 nor Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 16, directs the district court to inquire into the factual basis for the previous convictions. Nor does Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4, contain a requirement that prior convictions used to enhance a current offense arise from separate behavioral incidents.

Appellant argues that the word "similar" in the statute defining QDVO "indicates the legislature's intent to treat out-of-state convictions in the same manner as offenses committed in Minnesota," and therefore that out-of-state convictions can only be treated as QDVOs if they arose from separate behavioral incidents. But during the pendency of this appeal, this court released its opinion in State v. Defatte; that case is dispositive of appellant's claim. ___N.W.2d___ (Minn. App. Nov. 19, 2018).

Page 5

In Defatte, this court held that multiple Minnesota convictions arising from the same behavioral incident are considered distinct QDVOs, even when appellant was only actually sentenced for one of these convictions. 2018 WL 6034972, at *3-5. Even assuming appellant's argument is correct, that the word "similar" requires Minnesota courts to treat out-of-state-convictions as though they occurred in Minnesota, under Defatte each separate conviction would still count as a QDVO under Minnesota law.

Further, the plain language of the statute also confirms that there is no such requirement. None of the relevant statutes contains any requirement in their plain language that courts consider convictions from other jurisdictions as though they had been committed in Minnesota. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.02, .2242. And appellant has provided no authority or analysis that would expand the definition of "similar" beyond its common meaning to include his proposed additional requirement. See Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (1) (2018) ("[W]ords and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.").¹

As part of this argument, appellant asserts that if the offenses occurred in Minnesota, under Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1, appellant would only have been sentenced for one offense. While appellant is correct on this point, it is irrelevant. Under Defatte, while appellant would have only been sentenced for one of the offenses if they had occurred in Minnesota, both of them would still have been considered QDVOs for the purpose of

Page 6

enhancing his current charge if the court entered a judgment of conviction. 2018 WL 6034972, at *3-4.²

We therefore hold that appellant has failed to establish that he is entitled to relief under both State v. Defatte, 2018 WL 6034972, at *3-4, and the plain language of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.02, .2242.

Equal protection

Appellant also argues that not treating out-of-state convictions as though...