Opinion
A20-1299
06-07-2021
Joshua Stuart Vossen, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Sherburne County District Court
File No. 71-CR-17-1524 Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On October 17, 2017, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Joshua Vossen with aggravated robbery, theft of a motor vehicle, and fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle.
2. Vossen agreed to plead guilty to aggravated robbery and fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle, and the state agreed to dismiss the charge for theft of a motor vehicle. The parties anticipated a criminal-history score of eight—seven criminal-history points for prior felony convictions and one custody-status point. Pursuant to Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 2.B.2.c (Supp. 2017), the parties agreed on a three-month enhancement from the presumptive 108-month sentence for a total anticipated guidelines sentence of 111 months.
3. At sentencing, the district court imposed a 111-month term of imprisonment for aggravated robbery and a concurrent 22-month term of imprisonment for fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle. This decision included one criminal-history point for each of the following four offenses occurring on January 15-16, 2015: (1) January 15, 2015 motor vehicle theft in Sherburne County; (2) January 16, 2015 second-degree burglary in Anoka County; (3) January 16, 2015 motor vehicle theft in Anoka County; and (4) January 16, 2015 theft in Wright County.
4. On May 26, 2020, Vossen moved to correct his sentence pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9. In his attached affidavit, Vossen stated that he committed the four January 2015 offenses in an attempt to get out of the cold until he could locate a place to stay for the night. Vossen, therefore, argued that because the offenses were all part of a single behavioral incident, he should not have received felony points for two of the offenses. Because his criminal-history score would no longer be greater than six, Vossen argued that he should not have received the three-month enhancement, and the district court must reduce his presumptive sentence to 108 months.
5. The state opposed the motion and attached the plea petitions, complaints, and warrants of commitment for each of the four offenses. The state did not include records of the admissions made at the prior guilty pleas.
6. The district court considered Vossen's motion as both a motion to correct sentence under Rule 27.03, subdivision 9, and as a postconviction petition under Minnesota Statutes section 590.01 (2020). Without making any explicit determination of Vossen's stated objective, the district court summarily concluded that "Vossen's prior cases had a minimal amount of unity of time and place and were not motivated by a single, specific criminal objective," that "Vossen's claimed objective was too general," and that "because the convictions were four (4) separate incidents involving different victims, Defendant Vossen's criminal history was properly calculated and the correct presumptive sentence was ordered." Accordingly, the district court denied the motion without a hearing. This appeal follows.
7. We first observe that the motion is properly considered as a petition for postconviction relief. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, provides that the district court "may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law." However, when a motion to correct sentence under Rule 27.03, subdivision 9, implicates a plea agreement including the state's dismissal of other pending charges, the exclusive remedy is a petition for postconviction relief. State v. Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477, 481-82 (Minn. 2015); Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016). Because the 111-month sentence was part of the plea agreement that resulted in the state dismissing one of the charges, Vossen's motion is properly viewed as a petition for postconviction relief. Coles, 862 N.W.2d at 482.
8. We next conclude that the district court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing. Minnesota Statutes section 590.01 authorizes "a person convicted of a crime" to seek postconviction relief by filing a petition claiming that the sentence "violated the person's rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the state." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(1). Upon filing a petition for postconviction relief, the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing if the facts in the petition could entitle the petitioner to relief:
Upon filing a petition for postconviction relief, an evidentiary hearing must be held "[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief." Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2016). "In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner." Brown [v. State], 895 N.W.2d [612,] 618 [(Minn. 2017)].Andersen v. State, 913 N.W.2d 417, 422-23 (Minn. 2018); Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2020). "We review a postconviction court's summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion." Andersen, 913 N.W.2d at 422.
9. Vossen argues that the criminal-history score incorrectly included multiple offenses from a single behavioral incident. Generally, Minnesota law prohibits district courts from imposing multiple sentences for offenses committed as part of a single behavioral incident. Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1 (2016); see also Minn. Sent. Guidelines cmt. 2.B.107 (requiring that "only the offense at the highest severity level should be considered" when an offender has "multiple offenses occurring in a single course of conduct"); 2.B.1.d(2) (requiring that district courts only include the weights from the two highest severity offenses when multiple offenses arising from a single course of conduct involve multiple victims).
10. To determine whether Vossen was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, the district court must consider whether the facts alleged in the petition—when construed in the light most favorable to Vossen, see Andersen, 913 N.W.2d at 422-23—demonstrate that the four January 2015 offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by "an effort to obtain a single criminal objective," State v. Bakken, 883 N.W.2d 264, 270 (Minn. 2016) (quotations and citations omitted).
11. In this case, the district court's order does not expressly identify Vossen's objective for any of the January 2015 offenses, and the parties do not agree what the facts alleged in the petition indicate about Vossen's objective. The state asserts that Vossen committed the offenses in order to get out of the cold. Contrary to the state's factual assertion, Vossen argues that his petition expresses a more specific, more singular, and more criminal purpose: he intended to drive in one stolen car after another, evading law enforcement, until locating a place to stay out of the cold for the night.
12. The district court's order also makes no specific mention of the times or locations of the prior offenses, and the parties dispute the facts and circumstances surrounding the multiple offenses, including their time, location, and whether they were separated by any intervening actions.
13. Considering the allegations in the light most favorable to Vossen, and given the absence of any analysis of the alleged facts in the district court's order, we agree with Vossen. Following Andersen, 913 N.W.2d at 422-23, we conclude that the petition stated facts that, if established at an evidentiary hearing, could entitle Vossen to relief.
14. The state also argues that we can nevertheless affirm the district court by taking into consideration additional facts about the January 2015 offenses from the complaints for those prior offenses. We disagree. Given the absence of any specific factual analysis in the district court's order, the state's request would require this court to essentially make factual findings in the first instance. Kucera v. Kucera, 146 N.W.2d 181, 183 (Minn. 1966) ("It is not within the province of [appellate courts] to determine issues of fact on appeal."); Wright Elec., Inc. v. Ouellette, 686 N.W.2d 313, 324 (Minn. App. 2004) (stating that "this court cannot serve as the fact-finder"), review denied (Minn. Dec. 14, 2004). In addition, Anderson and Brown require the district court to disregard the state's competing version of the facts when deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing.
15. Because the petition includes facts that could entitle Vossen to relief, the district court abused its discretion in summarily denying Vossen's petition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order denying Vossen's postconviction motion is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, including an evidentiary hearing.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: June 7, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan