State v. Purdom

• Decision Date: 27 May 2014
• Docket Number: A13-0205
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Bryan Dale Purdom, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Bryan Dale Purdom, Appellant.

A13-0205

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: May 27, 2014

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

Affirmed

Schellhas, Judge

Polk County District Court

File No. 60-CR-12-1566

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

Gregory A. Widseth, Polk County Attorney, Crookston, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Charles F. Clippert, Special Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Harten, Judge.^*

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SCHELLHAS, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his postconviction-relief petition, arguing that (1) his failure-to-register-as-a-predatory-offender conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective. Appellant also raises several pro se arguments. We affirm.

FACTS

In August 2002, the district court required appellant Bryan Purdom to register as a "sex offender" after he was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. In March 2011, the court required him to register as a predatory offender for life after he pleaded guilty to knowingly violating at least one registration requirement or intentionally providing false information. In December 2011, Purdom signed a "Change of Information Form," listing a prior Minnesota address and a "Current Primary Address," effective late January 2012. In February 2012, Purdom signed an "Address Verification Form," listing a New Mexico address, along with a "Duty to Register" form.

In April 2012, Purdom told a carnival-games operator that he and his wife had separated, he "didn't want to be in that area anymore," and he was looking for a job. Purdom then traveled to Texas to work with the carnival-games operator. On July 5, Purdom and the operator left Texas; they arrived in Fertile, Minnesota, on July 7 to work at the Polk County Fair. From July 7 through July 10, Purdom worked with the carnival-games operator and slept in a recreational vehicle (RV) at the fairground. Around noon on July 10, the operator discharged Purdom, and, around 1:00 p.m., Purdom telephonedPolk County Sheriff's Office Administrative Sergeant Brian Lundeen, saying that he had been in Fertile for two or three days, needed to "complete the paperwork as an offender," and would go to the sergeant's office the next morning to do so. Purdom then ended the phone call. With assistance from a Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions (BCA) special agent and law enforcement from Clay County and the Barnesville Police Department, Sgt. Lundeen began a search for Purdom, who arrived at the Ada Police Department at about 4:45 p.m. and told an officer that he needed to register. The officer did not know about Sgt. Lundeen's search for Purdom and therefore allowed Purdom to complete a registration form and leave. Purdom listed his prior address as his New Mexico address and his current address as "no address at this time." A Clay County deputy arrested Purdom that night.

Respondent State of Minnesota charged Purdom with failure to register as a predatory offender on or about July 7-10, 2012, under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subds. 1b(a)(1)(iii), 3a, 5(a), (c) (2010). Two attorneys represented Purdom. Purdom stipulated before trial that, "[o]n or about July 7-10, 2012, the defendant was a person required to register as a predatory offender, and the defendant's duty to register as a predatory offender had not elapsed on July 10, 2012," and he did not testify. A jury found Purdom guilty, and the district court sentenced him in November 2012. Purdom appealed from the conviction, but this court granted Purdom's motion to stay the appeal and remand for postconviction proceedings.

Purdom petitioned the district court for postconviction relief, claiming that one of his trial attorneys advised him to enter the pretrial stipulation. He asked the court tovacate his conviction and sentence and order a new trial, grant him judgment of acquittal, or order an evidentiary hearing. The district court denied the petition without a hearing, and we dissolved the stay and reinstated this appeal.

DECISION

Sufficiency of Evidence

Purdom argues that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. Appellate courts reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the fact finder believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence" and determine whether the fact-finder could have reasonably concluded that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Gulbertson v. State, 843 N.W.2d 240, 245 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

The state asks this court to review Purdom's sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments only for plain error, arguing that Purdom did not preserve this issue for appeal because he neither moved for judgment of acquittal nor a new trial. The state's argument is of no consequence. "[A] conviction based upon anything less than 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime' violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and amounts to plain error affecting a defendant's substantial rights." State v. Clow, 600 N.W.2d 724, 726 (Minn. App. 1999) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1073 (1970)), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 1999). The interests of justice require this court to address insufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04 (permitting appellate courts to "review any . . . matter as the interest of justice may require").

Purdom is a person required to register as a predatory offender for life due to 2002 and 2011 convictions. The district court read a stipulation to the jury about Purdom's duty to register. The state could prove that he committed the offense of failure to register as a predatory offender on or about July 7-10, 2012, by proving that he was a person who (1) was required to register due to a criminal-sexual-conduct conviction, (2) lacked a primary address, and (3) "knowingly violate[d]" subdivision 3a(c)'s requirement that he register within 24 hours of entering the jurisdiction where he was staying. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subds. 1b(a)(1)(iii) (requiring persons to register who were convicted of criminal sexual conduct), 3a(c) (requiring persons who lack primary address to register within 24 hours of entering jurisdiction where they are staying), 5(a) (providing that a person commits a felony by "knowingly violat[ing]" section 243.166), (c) (sentencing provision). We interpret the "knowingly violates" language in section 243.166, subdivision 5(a), to require the defendant to perceive directly that the defendant's conduct violated section 243.166. Cf. State v. Watkins, 840 N.W.2d 21, 29 (Minn. 2013) (interpreting "'knowingly violates this subdivision' as used in . . . Minn. Stat. § 629.75 [(2012)] . . . to require the defendant to perceive directly that the contact violated the . . . statute").

Purdom argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he lacked a primary address until he lost his job. He maintains that, on July 10, 2012, his residence was in the RV at the fairground. We disagree. The predatory-offender statute defines primary address as "the mailing address of the person's dwelling" and dwelling as "the building where the person lives under a formal or informal agreement to do so." Minn. Stat.§ 243.166, subd. 1a(c), (g) (2010) (emphasis added). A recreational vehicle is not a building. Moreover, on July 10, Purdom stated on his registration form that he lacked an address and that his prior address was in New Mexico, where he had not resided since April 2012.

In his pro se brief, Purdom also argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he knowingly failed to register within 24 hours of his July 7, 2012, entry into the jurisdiction where he was staying. "[I]ntent is a state of mind and is, therefore, generally provable only by inferences drawn from a person's words or actions in light of all the surrounding circumstances." State v. Johnson, 719 N.W.2d 619, 630-31 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted). "If a conviction, or a single element of a criminal offense, is based solely on circumstantial evidence, such evidence, viewed as a whole, must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis except that of guilt." State v. Fairbanks, 842 N.W.2d 297, 307 (Minn. 2014). "If the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt, then the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction." Id.

Here, the circumstances proved include that, in February 2012, Purdom signed an "Address Verification Form," listing a current New Mexico address, and a "Duty to Register" form, acknowledging,

I understand that if I do not have a primary address I must report to the law enforcement authority with jurisdiction in the area where I will be staying within 24 hours of leaving my former primary address. . . . I understand that if I move to a new jurisdiction I must report to that law enforcement authority within 24 hours of entering the jurisdiction.

(Second emphasis added.) In February 2012, Purdom moved from Minnesota to New Mexico; in April 2012, he moved from New Mexico to Texas; and, on July 5-7, 2012, he resided in Fertile, Minnesota. On July 10, Purdom informed Sgt. Lundeen by telephone that he had been in Fertile for two or three days and needed to "complete the paperwork as an offender." Purdom then completed a predatory-offender registration form on which he listed his prior address as in New Mexico and current address as "no address at this time."

The jury was in the best position to evaluate the circumstantial evidence, and we should give the jury due deference. See Fairbank...