Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Sagataw

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

March 6, 2017

State of Minnesota, Appellant,
v.
Athena Mae Sagataw, Respondent.

         Mille Lacs County District Court File No. 48-CR-14-1042

          Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Joe Walsh, Mille Lacs County Attorney, Kali A. Gardner, Assistant County Attorney, Milaca, Minnesota (for appellant)

          Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

          Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Stauber, Judge.

         SYLABUS

         Under Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 1(c), when the state properly and timely initiates revocation of a stayed sentence, a district court retains jurisdiction to conduct probation revocation proceedings. The district court does not have discretion to dismiss revocation proceedings because the hearing is conducted after the stayed sentence has expired, although the district court may dismiss revocation proceedings for other reasons as provided by Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04.

          OPINION

          BRATVOLD, Judge

         The state challenges a district court's order that dismissed probation revocation proceedings after the district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the revocation hearing was conducted after respondent's stayed sentence had expired. Because probation revocation proceedings against respondent were properly and timely initiated, the district court had jurisdiction to conduct a revocation hearing. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in dismissing the revocation proceedings and discharging respondent from probation; thus, we reverse and remand.

         FACTS

         On December 30, 2014, respondent Athena Sagataw pleaded guilty to theft under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(a)(1) (2014). The district court accepted Sagataw's plea and stayed execution of her sentence for one year. The stay included conditions, specifically, to remain law abiding.

         Sagataw was convicted of four new theft offenses that occurred during the term of her stayed sentence. On November 5, 2015, probation filed a violation report. The district court issued an order and summons, revoking Sagataw's stayed sentence and ordering her to appear for a hearing.

         Sagataw failed to appear for the hearing and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Sagataw's sentence expired on December 31, 2015. The warrant was eventually quashed, and Sagataw made a first appearance on January 19, 2016, at which she denied the violation. The district court released Sagataw on bail.

         At Sagataw's contested revocation hearing on April 27, 2016, she admitted to the violation and the district court found that she knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to a contested hearing. The state and defense disagreed about how the district court should address the admitted violation. The state asked for execution of the stayed sentence. The defense requested that the district court order Sagataw to serve 15 days in jail concurrent with time she would be serving on one of the new theft convictions.

         The district court asked whether Sagataw's probation had been extended. The state responded that because the probation violation report was submitted before Sagataw's stayed sentence expired, and because Sagataw was in "continuing violation of a condition and fail[ed] to appear at a court hearing, " she remained on probation and the district court retained jurisdiction. The district court disagreed: "The Court doesn't have jurisdiction to impose a sentence here if there was no extended probation for whatever reason. She was sentenced on December 30, 2014, for a year only. It's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.