State v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 20 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. A11–2095.,A11–2095. |
| Citation | 819 N.W.2d 462 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Ronnie Earl PATTERSON, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(b) (2008) does not require persons with out-of-state convictions for offenses “arising out of the same set of circumstances” as offenses enumerated in the statute to register as predatory offenders.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Thomas A. Weist, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.
David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Benjamin J. Butler, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.
Considered and decided by STAUBER, Presiding Judge; CHUTICH, Judge; and COLLINS, Judge.*
Appellant Ronnie Earl Patterson, Jr., challenges his conviction for failure to register as a predatory offender in violation of Minn.Stat. § 243.166 (2008), arguing that (1) he is not required to register as a predatory offender under the statute; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he failed to notify his corrections agent five days before living at a new primary address; and (3) the district court committed plain error by admitting testimonial hearsay. In the alternative, appellant argues that the imposition of a conditional-release term must be vacated because the state did not establish that appellant had been assigned a risk-level III at the time of the offense. Because we conclude that the plain language of the statute does not require appellant to register as a predatory offender, we reverse his conviction without addressing his remaining arguments.
In 1998, appellant was indicted in Illinois for eleven crimes allegedly occurring on June 26, 1998. These alleged offenses included four counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault; two counts of criminal sexual assault; and one count each of vehicular invasion, vehicular hijacking, robbery, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and unlawful restraint. Appellant pleaded guilty to the unlawful-possession charge, and the remaining counts were dismissed.
Appellant later moved to Minnesota. Over the years, appellant has pleaded guilty to numerous crimes, including attempted first-degree aggravated robbery, attempted sale of a controlled substance, and second-degree sale of a controlled substance. In 2004, appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery and was sentenced to 63 months' imprisonment.
Appellant was released on parole in September 2008 and moved into a halfway house in south Minneapolis on intensive supervised release. On the evening of September 15, appellant left the halfway house for a meeting at a resource center in north Minneapolis. He contacted the halfway house and reported that he was going to the government center to receive an identification card, but he did not check in or return to the halfway house. Thirty minutes after he was scheduled to return, the halfway house staff contacted appellant's probation officer and requested a warrant.
The next morning, agents from the Minnesota Department of Corrections Fugitive Apprehension Unit found appellant allegedly hiding in the basement of his sister's house. Appellant was charged with failing to register as a predatory offender. In December 2008, appellant pleaded guilty and received a 20–month sentence, representing a downward-durational departure. One month later, the district court amended the sentence, adding a 10–year conditional release period “[a]s a level III offender in violation of Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a).” In December 2010, appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea under State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517 (Minn.2003), and the state agreed that the plea withdrawal was appropriate. The district court granted appellant's motion and vacated the sentence.
The case was tried to a jury, and appellant was convicted. At sentencing, the district court imposed a 30–month prison term, with credit for “at least [30] months,” and a 10–year conditional-release term. This appeal follows.
Does appellant's 1998 Illinois conviction for unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle require him to register as a predatory offender under Minn.Stat. § 243.166?
At the close of evidence, the district court instructed the jury that appellant would be required to register if he had been “convicted of either an offense in another state that would have been a violation of Minnesota law ... or another offense in the other state arising out of the same set of circumstances as the alleged violation of Minnesota law.” Appellant argues that, contrary to this instruction, he was not required to register as a predatory offender because he was not convicted of an offense enumerated in Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a). Because resolution of this issue is based on interpretation of the offender-registration statute, the district court's implicit determination that appellant is required to register as a predatory offender is subject to de novo review. See State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128, 135 (Minn.2007) ().
Under the statute, a person with a Minnesota conviction is required to register as a predatory offender if:
(1) the person was charged with ... a felony violation of or attempt to violate, or aiding, abetting, or conspiracy to commit, any of the following, and convicted of ... that offense or another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances:
[list of laws prohibiting certain offenses];
(2) the person was charged with ... a violation of, or attempt to violate, or aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit [list of laws prohibiting certain offenses], and convicted of ... that offense or another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances;
(3) the person was sentenced as a patterned sex offender under section 609.3455, subdivision 3a; or
(4) the person was convicted of ... violating a law of the United States, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, similar to the offenses described in clause (1), (2), or (3).
Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a).1 By contrast, a person with an out-of-state conviction is required to register if “the person was convicted of ... an offense that would be a violation of a law described in paragraph (a) if committed in [Minnesota].” Minn.Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(b)(1). Noticeably absent is any mention of convictions “arising out of the same set of circumstances.”
The state argues that appellant's Illinois conviction for possession of a stolen motor vehicle required him to register...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
El v. Pfeifer
...not to admit him for treatment. Meanwhile, in August 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision in State v. Patterson, 819 N.W.2d 462 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012), interpreting the language of the predatory offender registration statute with regard to the convictions that trigger thedu......
-
Markham v. State
..."arising out of the same set of circumstances" in the registration requirements for out-of-state offenses. State v. Patterson, 819 N.W.2d 462, 464-65 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Oct. 24, 2012). The postconviction court found that Markham's Indiana sexual battery conviction satisfied t......
-
State v. Ezeobi
...N.W.2d 700, 705 (Minn. 2010) (reviewing de novo whether defendant was required to register as predatory offender); State v. Patterson, 819 N.W.2d 462, 464 (Minn. App. 2012) ("Because resolution of [the issue of whether a defendant was required to register as a predatory offender] is based o......
-
State v. Frauss
...N.W.2d 700, 705 (Minn. 2010) (reviewing de novo whether defendant was required to register as predatory offender); State v. Patterson, 819 N.W.2d 462, 464 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2012). It is undisputed that appellant has a prior conviction requiring registration as......