Dakota County District Court File No. 19K503000796
Lori A. Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; andJames C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Tricia A. Loehr, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Interim Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chelsie Willett, Assistant Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Stauber, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.
In this sentencing appeal under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, appellant argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to correct his sentence because the Department of Corrections (DOC) improperly extended his conditional-release term to account for the time appellant spent incarcerated for violations of his supervised release. Appellant argues that the DOC should have instead deducted his entire supervised-release term from his conditional-release term as required by Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7(a) (2000). The state disagrees, and also claims that the district court did not have jurisdiction over appellant's claim. We affirm.
Appellant Brian Keith Schnagl was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in Dakota County and sentenced to 98 months in prison. The district court also imposed five years of conditional release as required by statute. On July 5, 2007, appellant was released from prison and placed on supervised release. Appellant was subsequently arrested on September 21, 2007, for failing to comply with chemical-dependency programming and failing to submit to random chemical testing. A hearing officer found appellant in violation of his supervised release, revoked his release status, and assigned appellant to 90-days of incarceration, with re-release contingent upon an agent approved plan.
On December 19, 2007, appellant was again released into the community. As required by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), appellant registered his address as the Recovery Resource Center (RRC) in Minneapolis. But on February 22, 2008, appellant left the RRC and failed to notify law enforcement of his current address. Consequently, a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Appellant was apprehended 202 days after the warrant was issued. The supervised-release board revoked appellant's supervised release for failing to complete residential programing, failing to maintain contact with his supervised-release agent, and failing to remain law abiding. The supervised-release board then assigned appellant to an additional 1, 095 days in custody.
While he was on conditional release, appellant was informed that the expiration date of his conditional-release term had been extended from January 23, 2013, to January 26, 2015. Appellant then filed a motion in Dakota County District Court pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, arguing that the expiration date of his conditional-release period had been illegally extended, and requesting an "order directing the [DOC] to subtract 32-months and 20-days of supervised release from his five-year conditional release" period. The state responded, arguing inter alia, that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the matter.
On April 22, 2013, the district court filed an order rejecting the state's claim that it did not have jurisdiction. But the district court also denied appellant's motion to "change, correct or otherwise modify [his] conditional release period calculation imposed by the [DOC]." The court reasoned that appellant "is entitled to credit against his conditional release time for time spent on supervised release while in the community complying with his supervised release conditions. He is not entitled to supervised ...