Opinion
No. CX-02-2153.
Filed June 10, 2003.
Appeal from the District Court, Anoka County, File No. KX005318.
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, and Robert M. A. Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Robert D. Goodell, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Ann McCaughan, Assistant State Public Defender, (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Wright, Presiding Judge, Randall, Judge, and Shumaker, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Jonathan Gerald Motyl appeals the district court's order denying jail credit for the time Motyl spent in the Sex-Offender Treatment Program of the Community Corrections Juvenile Center in Lino Lakes. Because it is not clear from the record that the district court determined whether the appellant met his burden of proving entitlement to jail credit, we reverse and remand.
FACTS
On August 14, 1998, appellant Jonathan Gerald Motyl pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. The Ramsey County District Court sentenced Motyl as an extended juvenile jurisdiction (EJJ) offender to two consecutive stayed 129-month sentences and placed him on juvenile probation. A condition of Motyl's probation was that he complete the Anoka County Sex Specific Program, and he completed that program.
Motyl's probation was transferred to Anoka County, and the court there adopted the Ramsey County sentence and placed Motyl in the Anoka County Juvenile Center Secure Long-Term Sex Offender Treatment Program.
Motyl violated his Anoka County probation several times. In January 2000, he used alcohol in violation of his probation. The court continued his probationary status and ordered him to complete sex-offender treatment. On June 22, 2000, the court found that Motyl violated his probation by failing to complete a halfway-house placement. The court revoked Motyl's EJJ status, ordered entry of judgment on the adult convictions, continued him on probation under the adult stayed sentences, and ordered that he serve 180 days in the Anoka County jail.
In 2001, Motyl violated his probation again by failing to complete sex-offender treatment; committing the felony of failing to register as a sex offender; moving and not reporting his new address to his probation officer; and failing to keep in contact with his probation officer.
On September 9, 2002, the district court revoked Motyl's probation on his first offense and sentenced him to the custody of the commissioner of corrections for 129 months. On his second offense, the court continued the stayed sentence and probation, to be served consecutively to the executed sentence.
Motyl requested custody credit for the period he spent in the Long-Term Sex Offender Program. The district court denied the request but did give Motyl 150 days credit for time he spent in the Anoka County jail. Motyl appeals the denial of credit for the sex-offender treatment.
DECISION
A defendant is entitled to jail credit for "all time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident for which sentence is imposed." Minn.R.Crim.P. 27.03, subd. 4(B). Thus, the decision to grant jail credit is not discretionary with the district court. State v. Fritzke, 521 N.W.2d 859, 861 (Minn.App. 1994) (citation omitted). However, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines provide that
[j]ail credit shall reflect time spent in confinement as a condition of a stayed sentence when the stay is later revoked and the offender is committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. Such credit is limited to time spent in jails, workhouses, and regional correctional facilities.
Minn. Sent. Guidelines III.C.3. The commentary to this section of the guidelines specifically remarks that "[c]redit should not be extended for time spent in residential treatment facilities." Minn. Sent. Guidelines cmt. III.C.04. Although an offender may receive treatment either as part of confinement in a state correctional facility or as part of a residential treatment program, the sentencing guidelines only permit jail credit for the correctional facility treatment. State v. Bradley, 629 N.W.2d 462, 465 (Minn.App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2001). The nature of the facility, rather than its level of security, is determinative. State v. Peterson, 359 N.W.2d 708, 710 (Minn.App. 1984) (holding defendant who received treatment in a secure state hospital was not entitled to jail credit), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 1985).
The burden is on the offender to show that the sex-offender placement is a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility, or the equivalent. State v. Willis, 376 N.W.2d 427, 428 n. 1 (Minn. 1985). The issue is whether Motyl has met this burden. The district court did not make any specific findings on this issue. Thus, we cannot determine from the record whether the court denied Motyl's custody-credit request because he failed to meet his burden to show the qualifying nature of the sex-offender placement or for some other reason. Therefore, we reverse and remand for specific findings on whether Anoka County Juvenile Center Secure Long-Term Sex Offender Treatment Program qualifies as a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility, or the equivalent.
It appeared that the district court relied on Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 5 (2000), in denying Motyl custody credit for the sex-offender placement. If the court did so, such reliance was inappropriate. In 2000, the Minnesota Legislature amended the EJJ statute to provide that "no credit shall be given for time served in juvenile facility custody prior to a summary hearing." Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 5. This clause became effective August 1, 2000, and the legislature did not make it retroactive. Thus, whether the statute applies to Motyl is determined by when Motyl had his "summary hearing" under Minn. Stat. § 260B.130.
Neither statutory nor caselaw defines "summary hearing." Motyl asserts that his "summary hearing" was on June 22, 2000, when his EJJ status was revoked and the court assumed adult jurisdiction over him. If true, this predated the effective date of the custody-credit amendment to the EJJ statute. On the other hand, the state asserts, that the statute refers to a hearing where the issue of jail credit is addressed. This hearing occurred on September 9, 2002, well after the statutory amendment's effective date.
Motyl's EJJ status was revoked on June 22, 2000, at a revocation hearing because Motyl had violated the terms of his probation. Under the EJJ statute, when the court finds that a juvenile has violated the conditions of a stayed sentence, "the court shall hold a summary hearing," and
[a]fter the hearing, if the court finds that reasons exist to revoke the stay of execution of sentence, the court shall treat the offender as an adult and order any of the adult sanctions authorized by section 609.14, subdivision 3.
Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 5. The statute further provides that
[u]pon revocation, the offender's extended jurisdiction status is terminated and juvenile court jurisdiction is terminated. The ongoing jurisdiction for any adult sanction, other than commitment to the commissioner of corrections, is with the adult court.
Id. Thus, the EJJ statute provides for a summary hearing where, if a probation violation is found, the court can impose adult sanctions, and jurisdiction is transferred to the adult court
[i]f sentence was previously imposed and execution thereof stayed, continue such stay and place the defendant on probation or order intermediate sanctions in accordance with the provisions of 609.135, or order execution of the sentence previously imposed.
Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 3(2).
This clause applies to Motyl because he was originally adjudicated as an EJJ offender, a juvenile disposition was imposed, and adult criminal sentences were imposed, but the execution of the adult sentences was stayed. On June 22, 2000, the court revoked Motyl's EJJ status, imposed the adult sentences, and then stayed execution and ordered Motyl into the Anoka County jail. A determination of jail credit is not necessary for the hearing to be classified as a "summary hearing," because the allowed adult sanctions include continuing the stay and placing the defendant on probation, thus obviating the necessity of determining jail credit. Additionally, there may be circumstances where EJJ cases involve juvenile dispositions in which the juvenile is never held in a detention center. If such a juvenile violates the conditions of his stayed sentence, he will be summoned for a violation hearing and his EJJ status may be revoked. Under the amended statute, a summary hearing must be possible where jail credit is not even an issue to be addressed at the revocation hearing. Therefore, Motyl's "summary hearing" for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 260B.130 occurred on June 22, 2000. This was before the effective date of the statutory amendment, and thus the statute does not apply to Motyl.