State v. White
| Docket Number | A23-0126 |
| Decision Date | 28 August 2023 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Dontae Deshaun White, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-20-10743
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mary F Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Adam E. Petras, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender Christopher Mishek, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
1. The procedural and timing requirements for a defendant challenging a restitution award under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3 (2022), are not jurisdictional.
2. Life-insurance proceeds that a murder victim's family receives are not an economic benefit conferred by the defendant and should not be considered in determining
restitution and the amount of economic loss sustained by the victim as a result of the offense under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(1) (2022).
Appellant Dontae Deshaun White seeks review of the district court's restitution order following his conviction for second-degree intentional murder. White's opening brief to this court argues that the district court erred in determining the amount of restitution for the victim's mother because (1) the mother testified at the restitution hearing that the victim's life-insurance proceeds paid for all funeral expenses that she submitted to the court and (2) some costs included in the restitution award were not related to the victim's funeral or directly caused by his murder. Respondent State of Minnesota, in its brief to this court, argues that we should affirm the restitution order-first, because White did not comply with the procedural and timing requirements provided in Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3, and alternatively, because the district court did not err in determining the restitution amount.
After both parties submitted their primary briefs, this court granted the parties' joint request to supplement the record with emails about White's restitution challenge. At oral argument, the state referred to these emails and withdrew its argument that White did not comply with the procedural and timing requirements of Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3. This court then requested supplemental briefing on whether White complied with the procedural and timing requirements and whether the requirements are jurisdictional, among other questions.
We first determine that White's restitution challenge did not comply with the procedural and timing requirements of Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3, but we also hold that these requirements are not jurisdictional. Thus, the district court had jurisdiction over White's restitution challenge.
Second, we consider the merits of White's restitution challenge and hold that life-insurance proceeds received by the murder victim's mother are not an economic benefit conferred by White and therefore should not be considered in determining "the amount of economic loss" sustained by the victim's family under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(1). Thus, the district court did not err by refusing to consider the life-insurance proceeds that the victim's mother received when it awarded restitution. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution for costs that postdate the victim's funeral. Accordingly, we affirm.
On April 17, 2020, K.B. and his roommate hosted a party of approximately 100 people at their house. At the door, party attendees paid a cover charge and were searched for weapons. K.B. and his roommate were armed. White and his brother attended the party, and White snuck a gun inside the home. K.B. asked White's brother to leave. White watched this exchange from across the room and walked over to his brother and K.B. White then shot and killed K.B.
In May 2020, the state charged White with second-degree intentional murder of K.B. under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2018), and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (Supp. 2019). In August 2021, a jury found White guilty of both counts, and in October, the district court sentenced White to 307 months in prison for second-degree murder. At sentencing, the district court reserved restitution to give K.B.'s mother, H.T., time to complete the required forms. White appealed his conviction and sentence, and this court affirmed. State v. White, No. A22-0072, 2022 WL 16728878, at *1 (Minn.App. Nov. 7, 2022), rev. denied (Minn. Jan 25, 2023).
On January 11, 2022, H.T. filed a claim for $15,778.68 in restitution that included an itemized list of expenses. On January 18, the district court ordered White to pay $15,778.68 in restitution to H.T. On May 23, White filed a memorandum challenging restitution and arguing that "[t]he amounts sought [by H.T.] are not 'out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the crime,' pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 611A.045" (2022) and that "White has extremely limited ability to pay."
The district court held a restitution hearing on June 1, at which H.T. and White testified. H.T. testified, in response to questions, that K.B.'s life-insurance proceeds paid for the itemized costs included in her January 11 restitution request. At the end of the hearing, White's attorney asked to "submit an additional brief . . . adding some new information on the costs that should be covered" by restitution. The district court granted the request and gave the state the opportunity to file a responsive brief.
On June 16, White filed a request for "documentation from H.T. showing the exact amount she was given by K.B.'s life insurance policy." This request went unanswered. On July 22, White moved to deny restitution because H.T. "has already been made whole through a life insurance payout that covered the entirety of the losses [she] accrued from funeral expenses." The state opposed, arguing that H.T. "suffered a loss because [life-insurance] funds that could be used otherwise had to be appropriated for funeral expenses."
In an October 25 order, the district court denied White's motion and ordered White to pay "the previously ordered" restitution. The district court first determined that the restitution requested was "reasonable and . . . directly related to [K.B.'s] funeral." Second, the district court determined that K.B.'s "life insurance policy does not preclude restitution" because "the intended purpose of a life insurance policy is to provide supplemental income to a deceased['s] family members after the death of the policyholder; and not solely to cover financial expenses related to the funeral of a crime victim." Third, the district court ruled that White failed to establish his inability to pay, determining that White "has the ability to pay some amount towards restitution."[1]
White appeals.
I. Did White's restitution challenge comply with the procedural and timing requirements of Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3, and are those requirements jurisdictional?
II. Did the district court err by failing to consider life-insurance proceeds received by the murder victim's mother in determining the amount of her economic loss under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 1(a)(1)?
III. Did the district court abuse its discretion by awarding restitution for some expenses that postdate the murder victim's funeral?
Minnesota Statutes section 611A.045, subdivision 3, provides two key requirements for a defendant seeking to challenge restitution. First, a defendant "may challenge restitution, but must do so by requesting a hearing within 30 days of receiving written notification of the amount of restitution requested, or within 30 days of sentencing, whichever is later." Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b). The hearing request "must be made in writing and filed with the court administrator." Id. After the 30-day time period has passed, a defendant "may not challenge restitution," id., unless the challenge relates to "the district court's legal authority to award restitution," Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 361 (Minn. 2016).
Second, if a defendant "intends to challenge the amount of restitution or specific items of restitution or their dollar amount," the defendant must provide "a detailed sworn affidavit . . . setting forth all challenges to the restitution or items of restitution, and specifying all reasons justifying dollar amounts of restitution which differ from the amounts requested by the victim or victims." Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a). The defendant's affidavit "must be served on the prosecuting attorney and the court at least five business days before the hearing." Id.
In its primary brief to this court, the state argues that White "did not comply with the applicable statutory requirements" because he failed to file a written hearing request within the 30-day time period and failed to serve an affidavit challenging restitution at least five business days before the restitution hearing. White moved for additional time to respond so the parties could jointly move to supplement the record with "e-mail communications between [the district court], the prosecutor from the Hennepin County Attorney's Office and appellant's trial counsel pertaining to the timing of appellant's restitution challenge." In an affidavit filed in support of the motion, White's attorney averred that the state's attorney was "not aware of the e-mails" at the time the state filed its brief with this...
To continue reading
Request your trial