State v. Scheffler
Decision Date | 08 July 2019 |
Docket Number | A19-0488 |
Citation | 932 N.W.2d 57 |
Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Troy Kenneth SCHEFFLER, Appellant. |
Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
David J. Brodie, Coon Rapids City Attorney, Coon Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent)
Troy Kenneth Scheffler, Merrifield, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his fee-waiver request in a district court action to expunge a petty misdemeanor conviction. Because the district court’s determination that appellant is ineligible for fee waiver is based on its erroneous determination that appellant is not indigent, and because the ultimate decision whether to waive a filing fee in an action to expunge criminal records is governed by Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, and not by Minn. Stat. § 563.01, on which the district court relied, we reverse and remand for the district court to reconsider appellant’s fee-waiver request based on the standards set forth in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03.
In March 2019, appellant Troy Kenneth Scheffler petitioned to expunge records regarding his petty misdemeanor conviction for failing to wear a seatbelt. Scheffler requested waiver of court fees and costs, and the district court denied his request. This appeal follows.1
Did the district court err in denying Scheffler’s request for waiver of fees and costs in his expungement action?
Scheffler was convicted of a petty misdemeanor seatbelt violation in 2010. He petitioned for expungement of the conviction in 2019, asserting that he had not been convicted of any crime since 2010. He sought relief under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3) (2018), which provides:
A petition may be filed under section 609A.03, to seal all records relating to an arrest, indictment or information, trial, or verdict ... if ... the petitioner was convicted of or received a stayed sentence for a petty misdemeanor or misdemeanor and has not been convicted of a new crime for at least two years since discharge of the sentence for the crime[.]
Scheffler’s petition explained that he was seeking expungement because his "[r]ecord looks too long" and because "[p]eople publicly access the record such as potential girlfriends and it looks like a lot to explain." Scheffler’s petition indicated that his criminal record also includes convictions from 1994, 1998, and 2005 for driving while impaired; a conviction from 1995 for underage consumption; and a conviction from 1997 for reckless driving.
The expungement statute provides for the payment and waiver of a filing fee as follows:
An individual who is the subject of a criminal record who is seeking the expungement of the record shall file a petition under this section and pay a filing fee in the amount required under section 357.021, subdivision 2, clause (1). The filing fee may be waived in cases of indigency and shall be waived in the cases described in section 609A.02, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (1).
Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 1. Section 357.021 establishes a filing fee of $285. Minn. Stat. § 357.021, subd. 2(1) (2018). Under section 609A.03, subdivision 1, the filing fee must be waived in cases in which "all pending actions or proceedings were resolved in favor of the petitioner." Minn. Stat. §§ 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1), .03, subd. 1 (2018). In all other cases, waiver is discretionary. See Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 1 ( ); Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15 (2018) (" ‘May’ is permissive.").
Although Scheffler asked the district court to waive the fees and costs associated with his expungement action, he did not seek waiver under section 609A.03. Instead, he sought waiver under Minn. Stat. § 563.01, which governs authorization of in forma pauperis (IFP) status in civil cases. The IFP statute provides:
Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3(a), (b) (emphasis added).
As support for his assertion that he is unable to pay fees and costs, Scheffler submitted documents indicating that he receives medical assistance and energy assistance, which are forms of public assistance referenced in section 563.01, subdivision 3(b). See Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 14 (2018) ( ). The district court denied Scheffler’s request for IFP status under section 563.01, using a form order and checking a single box indicating that "[t]he applicant is not found to be indigent and is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis."
Scheffler contends that the district court "had no discretion to ... deny the IFP" because the IFP statute states that "the court shall allow the person to proceed in forma pauperis if the affidavit is substantially in the language required," his affidavit met that requirement, and the affidavit was accompanied by "government proofs of Medical Assistance and Energy Assistance." (Emphasis omitted.) In addition, Scheffler notes that after the district court denied IFP status in the underlying expungement action, another judge of the same district court granted Scheffler’s request for IFP status in this appeal. In doing so, the district court once again used a form order, but this time it checked a box indicating that "the applicant is financially unable to pay any fees and entitled to proceed in forma pauperis." Scheffler contends that "[a] person is either a pauper or not; the statute’s standards are the same on either end." Scheffler asks this court to reverse in a published decision clarifying the standards that govern an IFP determination in district court.
We review a district court’s denial of IFP status for an abuse of discretion. See Maddox v. Dep't of Human Servs. , 400 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn. App. 1987) ( ). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is against logic and the facts in the record. State v. Guzman , 892 N.W.2d 801, 810 (Minn. 2017).
We question whether the IFP statute, section 563.01, provides the relief that Scheffler seeks. By its own terms, section 563.01 applies to civil actions. Chapter 609A, which governs the expungement of criminal records, does not indicate whether such an expungement action is a criminal action or a civil action.2 See Minn. Stat. §§ 609A.01 -.04 (2018). And we are not aware of any precedential authority establishing that an expungement action under chapter 609A is a civil action.3
But we recognize that sections 563.01 and 609A.03 are consistent in that they provide for fee waiver in cases of indigency. See Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3(b) ( ); Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 1 ( ). We also recognize that, unlike section 563.01, section 609A.03 does not provide a standard for determining whether an individual is financially eligible for fee waiver. Lastly, we recognize that the district court considered and decided Scheffler’s request for fee waiver under section 563.01, apparently without questioning whether section 563.01 applies in an action to expunge criminal records. For all of those reasons, we assume without deciding that an expungement action under chapter 609A is a "civil action" within the meaning of section 563.01 and that the standards for determining financial eligibility for fee waiver under section 563.01 may be used to determine whether a petitioner is indigent within the meaning of section 609A.
As to the district court’s determination that Scheffler is not indigent, Scheffler submitted two documents as proof of his financial circumstances: a document from Crow Wing County Social Services stating that he was "still eligible for [health care] benefits," which referred to the "program" "MA," and a document from Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota stating that he was eligible for an "Energy Assistance grant [of] $343.00." There is no evidence in the record to contradict the information contained in those documents, and the district court’s order does not provide any basis to reject those documents as proof of Scheffler’s financial circumstances. Those documents indicate that Scheffler meets one of the standards for financial eligibility under section 563.01. See Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3(b) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pharaoh El-Forever Left-i Amen El v. Titus
...560, 563 (Minn. 1981). This court reviews a district court's denial of IFP requests for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn. App. 2019). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is "against logic and the facts in the record." State v. Guzman......
-
Cmty. Hous. Servs. - Park Towers, Inc. v. Gay, A20-0279
...court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court's denial of in forma pauperis status. State v. Scheffler , 932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn. App. 2019). In this case, the district court denied Gay's application on the ground that she "is not found to be indigent and is no......
-
Leekley-Winslow v. Minnesota
...correctly notes, under Minnesota law, IFP decisions are subject to appellate review. See Minn. Stat. § 480A.06; State v. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019). Plaintiff had sixty days from July 23, 2019 to appeal the IFP decision, which he did not do. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P.......
-
Haman v. Seth Tyberg
...932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn.App. 2019). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is "against logic and the facts in the record." Id. But determining the requirements of Statutes section 145.682 requires statutory interpretation, which is a question of law that appellate courts rev......