State v. Hugger

• Decision Date: 21 March 2002
• Docket Number: No. C7-01-1144.,C7-01-1144.
• Citation: State v. Hugger, 640 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 2002)
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Ronald Scott HUGGER, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

640 N.W.2d 619

STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Ronald Scott HUGGER, Respondent.

No. C7-01-1144.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 21, 2002.

Barna, Guzy & Steffen Ltd., Thomas P. Malone (# 66989), Cheryl A. Jorgensen (# 295012), Minneapolis, MN, Minnesota Attorney General, Mike Hatch, Attorney General's Office, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.

Ramsey & Devore, P.A., Charles A. Ramsay (# 260277), Rebecca R. Fisher (# 296533), Roseville, MN, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

STRINGER, Justice.

Ronald Scott Hugger (respondent) was charged with various offenses including driving while intoxicated (DWI) after his vehicle was stopped by a police officer in February 2001. Following his pretrial motion to suppress evidence and dismiss all counts for lack of probable cause, the district court ruled that the state failed to show that the officer had a reasonable basis for stopping respondent's vehicle. The court order dismissing the charges was filed on June 26, 2001 and the district court administrator served notice of filing on the parties by mail the next day, June 27. On July 9, 2001, the state filed a notice of appeal which the court of appeals dismissed as untimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Respondent was arrested in the city of Centerville in the early morning hours of February 15, 2001 and charged with eight violations of Minnesota law, including DWI, after his vehicle was stopped by a police officer who had observed respondent weaving in his lane and "rubbing" the fog line. Respondent moved to suppress the evidence against him and dismiss the charges on grounds that the officer did not have sufficient articulable suspicion of criminal conduct to justify the stop and that there was no probable cause for his arrest. The district court then found that there was probable cause for respondent's arrest, but requested briefs from the parties in regard to the basis for the stop. Following the additional briefing, the district court held that the state failed to show that the officer had an articulable suspicion of criminal conduct for stopping respondent's vehicle and granted respondent's motion to dismiss all eight counts.

The pretrial order of the district court granting respondent's motion to dismiss was filed on June 26, 2001. On June 27, 2001, the district court administrator served notice of filing of the order of dismissal by mail on the parties.¹ The state subsequently filed a notice of appeal in the court of appeals on July 9, 2001. The court of appeals questioned the timeliness of the appeal and requested memoranda from the parties on the issue, ultimately dismissing the appeal as untimely because it was not filed within 8 days after the district court administrator served notice of filing by mail. The court arrived at the 8-day time period by combining the prescribed period of 5 days from the date a notice of filing is served within which a party may appeal pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 2(8), with the 3 days added to the prescribed period when service is by mail pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 34.04. Because the time for appeal then totaled 8 days, the court concluded that the provision in Minn. R.Crim. P. 34.01 which excludes Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays for prescribed time periods of 7 days or less did not apply. In doing so, the court rejected the state's argument that since the period prescribed by rule 28.04, subd. 2(8) is 5 days rather than 8, rule 34.01 should apply so as to exclude weekends and legal holidays in the initial 5-day computation before extending the period 3 days to account for service by mail. Under the state's approach, notice of appeal filed on July 9 would have been timely.

On review here, the sole issue is the proper application of three rules governing criminal procedure in Minnesota. As the construction and interpretation of a rule of criminal procedure is a question of law, our review is de novo. State v. Nerz, 587 N.W.2d 23, 24-25 (Minn.1998).

We begin with a review of the three rules-Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 2(8), Minn. R.Crim. P. 34.01 and Minn. R.Crim. P. 34.04. The procedure for appeal of a pretrial order by a prosecuting attorney is governed by Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 2, and provides, in relevant part:

The appeal * * * shall be taken within 5 days after the defense, or the clerk of court * * *, subsequently serves notice of entry of the order appealed from upon the prosecuting attorney * * *.

Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 2(8). To determine specifically how this time period is to be computed, Minn. R.Crim. P. 34.01 sets forth the following:

The day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday. When a period of time prescribed or allowed is seven days or less, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.²

When service is accomplished by mail, Minn. R.Crim. P. 34.04 provides that an additional period of 3 days is added:

Whenever a party has the right or is required to do an act within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon the party and the notice or other paper is served upon the party by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period.

The notice of filing of the district court order granting respondent's motion to dismiss here was served on the parties by mail on June 27, 2001, thus triggering the running of the 5-day prescribed period beginning on June 28. The state filed its notice of appeal with the court of appeals on July 9. The state contends that this filing was timely, arguing that there is no Minnesota case law on point and that Minnesota's rules should be applied in a manner consistent with the federal court interpretation of closely comparable federal rules³—an interpretation that excludes weekend days and legal holidays before adding 3 days for service by mail. The state asserts that this approach best effectuates the plain meaning and intent of the comparable Minnesota rules.

Focusing first on the repeated reference throughout the rules to the term "prescribed period," the state argues that the 5 days provided for appeal under rule 28.04, subd. 2(8) is the prescribed period, and therefore the provision in rule 34.01 excluding intermediate weekend days and legal holidays is applicable because the prescribed period is 7 days or less. The additional 3 days for service by mail pursuant to rule 34.04, the state argues, should not be included within the prescribed period, but rather should be added to the prescribed period as the words of the rule provide. The state asserts that the interpretation urged by respondent and adopted by the court of appeals, which includes intermediate weekend days and legal holidays in the computation, effectively defeats the purpose of the additional 3 days allowed for service by mail in rule 34.04.

Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the court of appeals properly combined the 5-day period set forth in rule 28.04, subd. 2(8) and the additional 3-day period for service by mail provided in rule 34.04 into a continuous 8-day period—thus making inapplicable the provision of rule 34.01 excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays for periods of "seven days or less." Under respondent's computation the state was required to file its appeal on or before July 5. Respondent contends that this approach is supported by the holdings of this court citing In re Iofredo's Estate v. Iofredo, 241 Minn. 335, 63 N.W.2d 19 (1954), and State v. Nerz, 587 N.W.2d 23 (Minn.1998). Respondent also notes that this approach is consistent with the manner in which the corresponding and nearly identical Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.01 and 6.05⁴ are applied and is consistent with various publications providing guidance to Minnesota practitioners.⁵

In Iofredo, a civil case implicating Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.01 and 6.05, we held that the 30-day prescribed period and the additional 3 days for service by mail resulted in a single 33-day time period within which to file the notice of appeal. 241 Minn. at 338, 63 N.W.2d at 21. Appellants argued that they were entitled to a total of 34 days because the 30-day prescribed period ended on a Sunday which, in accordance with the rules, should be adjusted to Monday, and then the additional 3 days should be added. Id. We rejected this argument focusing instead on the 33rd day, and as it did not fall on a Sunday or a holiday,⁶ we held appellants' notice of appeal on the 34th day was untimely. 241 Minn. at 338-39, 63 N.W.2d at 21.

More recently in Nerz, we applied Minn. R.Crim. P. 34.04 to a time period of 5 days, as here, and cited Iofredo for the general proposition that the 3 days for service by mail provided in rule 34.04 are to be "added to the prescribed time allowed" and that this "create[s] a single period of time." 587 N.W.2d at 25. In Nerz, the issue was how to apply a district court order granting the state "five (5) working days after notice of entry of this Order" in which to file an amended complaint.⁷ Id. at 24 (emphasis added). Giving effect to the plain meaning of "working days" as days other than Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, we calculated the relevant filing date by determining the 5th working day and then adding 3 days for service by mail.⁸ Id. at 25-26.

Respondent argues that reference to the prescribed period within which to take action and the 3 days for service by mail as a "single period of time" in Nerz (and by implication in Iofredo) is a recurring theme that converts the prescribed period set forth in the rules to that allowed by the rules plus 3 days. The implication of Nerz, respondent...