County District Court File No. 19HA-CR-15-1909
Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and James C.
Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Tricia A. Loehr, Assistant
County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sharon
E. Jacks, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Schellhas,
Judge; and Muehlberg, Judge.
minimum-restitution provision in Minnesota Statutes section
609.527, subdivision 4 (2014), which requires a district
court to order a person convicted of identity
MUEHLBERG, Judge [*]
Emile Rey challenges his obligation to pay restitution in the
amount of $66, 000, arguing that: the identity-theft statute,
which authorized the district court to order restitution,
violates his substantive and procedural due-process rights;
the district court abused its discretion because it failed to
consider his ability to pay restitution; and the restitution
amounted to an unconstitutional fine. We affirm.
pleaded guilty to one count of identity theft involving more
than eight direct victims. See Minn. Stat. §
609.527, subds. 2, 3(5) (2014). He admitted that he obtained
cloned credit cards between February and June
2015, using the credit of at least 66 victims without their
permission. He used the cloned cards to purchase gift cards
for personal use. Before sentencing, the state contacted 13
of the 66 victims and received six victim-impact statements.
Rey's sentencing hearing, the district court ordered him
to pay $66, 000 in restitution, $1, 000 to each direct
victim, under the minimum-restitution provision of the
statute. See id., subd. 4. Rey requested a hearing
to challenge the amount of restitution. He argued that the
minimum-restitution provision was unconstitutional because it
violated his substantive and procedural due-process rights
and that the restitution amounted to an unconstitutional
fine. The district court explained that it was under an
affirmative obligation to order $1, 000 to each direct
victim, implicitly concluding that a victim only needed to
meet the definition of a direct victim to be entitled to
restitution. Rey waived the restitution
hearing. This appeal follows.
the minimum-restitution provision in Minnesota Statutes
section 609.527, subdivision 4, violate Rey's substantive
Does the minimum-restitution provision in Minnesota Statutes
section 609.527, subdivision 4, violate ...