Werlich v. Schnell, A19-0829
| Decision Date | 21 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | A19-0829 |
| Citation | 958 N.W.2d 354 |
| Parties | Max Carl WERLICH, Appellant, v. Paul SCHNELL, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
This case concerns as-applied constitutional challenges to the collateral consequences resulting from registration as a predatory offender, which the district court dismissed under Rule 12.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. The statute provides that a person must register as a predatory offender if the person is convicted of an enumerated offense or charged with an enumerated offense and convicted of any other offense that arises out of the same set of circumstances as the charged offense. Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b (2020). Appellant Max Carl Werlich was initially charged with kidnapping, an enumerated offense, and two other offenses. Under a plea agreement, the State dismissed the initial complaint and filed a new complaint charging Werlich with crimes other than kidnapping.
After Werlich pleaded guilty and began serving his sentence, the Commissioner of Corrections denied his application for the Challenge Incarceration Program because persons required to register as predatory offenders are not eligible for that program. See Minn. Stat. § 244.17, subd. 3(a)(4) (2020). Specifically, the Commissioner asserted that Werlich's convictions for crimes other than kidnapping arose out of the same set of circumstances as the initial, but dismissed, charge of kidnapping. Given those shared circumstances, the previous charge of kidnapping required Werlich to register as a predatory offender under section 243.166, which made him ineligible for the Program. Werlich then sued the Commissioner for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the predatory offender registration statute and its many collateral consequences deny him due process as applied to his charged, but not convicted, enumerated offense of kidnapping. The district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. We granted Werlich's petition for review concerning the dismissal of his constitutional claims.
We conclude that several of Werlich's claims are not justiciable, but at least some of the facts alleged in the complaint state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Because the district court dismissed Werlich's complaint under Rule 12.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, we accept as true the following facts that he alleged in his complaint. See Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A. , 851 N.W.2d 598, 606 (Minn. 2014). Werlich's complaint states that he was at a friend's house when two persons dropped by to sell cannabis. He thought that the two owed him money, he demanded repayment, and a dispute ensued. The two persons told police that they and Werlich went to a gas station where Werlich instructed one of them to withdraw cash from an ATM. Werlich then left with $40 and two cell phones.
Based upon these allegations, the State charged Werlich with one count of kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm. The State and Werlich then negotiated a plea deal that all sides agree was intended to allow him to participate in the Challenge Incarceration Program. The Program is a boot camp-style work program designed to rehabilitate young and able-bodied offenders, making them eligible for conditional release after six months. As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed the first complaint and filed a new complaint under a different docket number, this time without the kidnapping charge.1 Werlich pleaded guilty to the new charges, and the district court sentenced him to 71 months in prison.
After Werlich pleaded guilty and started serving his sentence, the Commissioner of Corrections found Werlich to be ineligible for the Program because he is required to register as a predatory offender. See Minn. Stat. § 244.17, subd. 3(a)(4) (). A person convicted of an enumerated offense2 or charged with an enumerated offense and convicted of another offense "arising out of the same set of circumstances" as the charged enumerated offense must register as a predatory offender. Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b. According to the Commissioner, Werlich is required to register as a predatory offender because he was initially charged with an enumerated offense—kidnapping—that arose out of the same set of circumstances as the offenses on which he was convicted.
Had Werlich been eligible for and accepted into the Program, he could have been released after six months. See Minn. Stat. § 244.172, subds. 1–2 (2020). Instead, Werlich was required to serve his sentence in prison.
Werlich then sued the Commissioner and the Superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Werlich challenged the Commissioner's determination that he is required to register as a predatory offender, his ineligibility for the Program, his transfer to prison, and the imposition of a restriction limiting him to "no-contact" visits with his infant son.
In his complaint, Werlich asserted three claims alleging four constitutional violations. First, Werlich alleged that the Commissioner's reliance on unproven allegations to classify him as a predatory offender violates his substantive due process rights under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions; namely, that the registration requirement infringes on his fundamental rights to an earlier release date, his right to parent his child, his presumption of innocence, and his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Second, Werlich alleged that predatory offender registration violates his procedural due process rights because the State used unproven allegations as the basis for punishment without affording him sufficient procedure. Third, he alleged that predatory offender registration violates his right to a jury trial and to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution because the State used unproven allegations as the basis for punishment. Fourth, Werlich alleged that predatory offender registration violates the separation of powers under Article III of the Minnesota Constitution because the statute imposing that requirement infringes on the prosecutor's discretion not to pursue the original kidnapping charge. He sought injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a declaration that he is eligible for the Program, or alternatively, if he is ineligible under the relevant statutes and program rules, that his ineligibility violates his constitutional rights.3
The Commissioner moved to dismiss under Rule 12.02(a) and (e) of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted in part the motion to dismiss, finding based on Boutin v. LaFleur , 591 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1999) —and court of appeals’ decisions relying on it—that most of the facts alleged in the complaint failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The district court did find, however, that Werlich's claim concerning the no-contact visitation restriction with his child survived Rule 12.02(e). The parties then stipulated to dismissal of the no-contact visitation restriction, and the district court directed entry of a final judgment.
The court of appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Werlich's complaint. Werlich v. Schnell , No. A19-0829, 2020 WL 773493 (Minn. App. Feb. 18, 2020). The court held that the plain language of the statute establishing the Program's eligibility exclusions applied to Werlich. Id. at *4–5. Regarding Werlich's constitutional claims, the court of appeals agreed with the district court that Boutin controlled.4 Id. at *6, *11. The court also held that Werlich's remaining claims were not ripe, in part because of his incarceration. Id. at *7. Finally, the court concluded that the predatory offender registration statute does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Id. at *10.
Werlich filed a petition for review. We granted review on the issue of whether the court of appeals erred when it affirmed the dismissal of his constitutional claims.
On appeal, Werlich challenges the dismissal of his claims, asserting that the collateral consequences of the predatory offender registration statute violate his due process rights and the separation of powers doctrine. His underlying claims were limited to the consequences of designating him as subject to registration, as applied to his charged, but dismissed, enumerated offense of kidnapping. The Commissioner of Corrections contends that Werlich's claims are not ripe. But even if we address the substance of his claims, the Commissioner asserts that Boutin v. LaFleur precludes them. Because the parties dispute whether our decision in Boutin controls the outcome here, we address that issue first.
In Boutin , we upheld the constitutionality of the predatory offender registration statute. 591 N.W.2d at 716–19. The Commissioner contends that if we reverse the court of appeals in this case, we must necessarily overrule Boutin . Werlich counters that Boutin does not preclude the relief requested in his complaint because after we decided Boutin , the Legislature enacted many additional requirements for and consequences of registration.
Werlich is correct. In Boutin , we specifically looked at the impacts of registration as a predatory offender that existed at that time. Notably, registration then consisted of only three requirements:
First, the offender must submit a signed registration form which contains "information required by the bureau of criminal apprehension," along with "a fingerprint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Minn. Power's Petition for Approval of the Energyforward Res. Package, A19-0688
-
Lange v. Evans
...as a predatory offender, the applicable caselaw is found in Boutin v. LaFleur, 591 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 1999), and Werlich v. Schnell, 958 N.W.2d 354 (Minn. 2021). Two questions arise: "First, is there a liberty or property interest with which the state has interfered?" "Second, were the proce......
-
State v. Berry
...offense—no matter how minor—that arises from the same set of circumstances as the predatory offense charge.’ " Werlich v. Schnell , 958 N.W.2d 354, 366 n.8 (Minn. 2021).4 We agree that Lopez did not create a "but for" test. In analyzing the "persons involved" factor of the Lopez test, the d......
-
In re S.B.G.
...person's constitutional rights, including the right to due process and the fundamental right to parent a child. See Werlich v. Schnell , 958 N.W.2d 354, 364-65 (Minn. 2021) (concluding that appellant alleged justiciable claim that predatory-offender registration requirement violated constit......