County District Court File No. 19HA-CR-14-4232
Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Jeremy P.
Knutson, Mendota Heights City Attorney, Grannis & Hauge,
P.A., Eagan, Minnesota (for respondent)
H. Caplan, Hillary B. Parsons, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson,
Judge; and Klaphake, Judge.
defendant is acquitted of a gross misdemeanor offense and is
only found guilty of a misdemeanor offense and given a petty
misdemeanor sentence, the case is not a gross misdemeanor
case for purposes of the rule specifying the deadline for a
direct appeal, and any appeal must be filed within the period
allotted for misdemeanors.
KLAPHAKE, JUDGE [*]
appeal from a final judgment, appellant Roberta Duval Parnell
argues that she is entitled to reversal of her conviction or
to a new trial because the evidence was insufficient and
reversible errors were made at trial. Because this is not a
gross misdemeanor case, but a misdemeanor or petty
misdemeanor case, and because the notice of appeal was filed
91 days after entry of final judgment, well beyond the 30-day
appeal period, the appeal is untimely and must be dismissed.
was charged with fourth-degree assault of a peace officer in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 1 (2012);
obstructing legal process or arrest in violation of Minn.
Stat. § 609.50, subd. 1(2) (2012); and disorderly
conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.72, subd. 1(3)
trial, the jury was properly instructed on the assault and
disorderly conduct charges. The instructions given to the
jury on the obstruction charge did not include the
"force or violence" language for a gross
misdemeanor offense and instructed only on the elements for a
misdemeanor obstruction charge. See Minn. Stat.
§ 609.50, subds. 1(2), 2(2). The jury acquitted Parnell
of assault and disorderly conduct, but found her guilty of
the obstruction charge. Parnell filed a motion for judgment
of acquittal or a new trial, which the district court denied
on the record. The parties agreed to proceed with sentencing,
and the district court entered a conviction on the guilty
verdict and sentenced Parnell to a petty misdemeanor, with no
fine or probation.
electronically filed a notice of appeal with the clerk of the
appellate courts on December 20, 2016, 91 days after final
judgment was entered on September 20, 2016.
appeal, the state argues that the appeal should be dismissed
as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days after
entry of final judgment, as required by Minn. R. Crim. P.
28.02, subd. 4(3)(a) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed
within 90 days after entry of final judgment in felony and
gross misdemeanor cases).
oral arguments before this court, both parties' counsel
were asked whether the appeal was timely filed. Both
parties' counsel assumed that this is a gross misdemeanor
case subject to a 90-day appeal period. And both parties
argued whether Parnell had established "good cause"
for a one-day extension of time to file the notice of appeal.
See Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(g).
Additionally, the ...