County District Court File No. 84-CR-16-15
Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Carl
Thunem, Wilkin County Attorney, Breckenridge, Minnesota (for
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rachel
F. Bond, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Jesson,
Judge; and Randall, Judge.[*]
Stat. § 609.101, subd. 2 (2014), is not facially
unconstitutional because it does not establish a
mandatory-minimum fine in violation of the Excessive Fines
Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.
appeal from his conviction of third-degree criminal sexual
conduct, appellant argues that the district court's
imposition of a $9, 000 fine violates the Excessive Fines
Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Minnesota
Constitution. We affirm.
met appellant Garnet Frances Madden on Christmas Day of 2015
at her father's house. At that time, A.G. was 15 years
old, and appellant was 26 years old. Appellant's mother
and A.G.'s father were in a romantic relationship.
January 8, 2016, A.G. went to her father's house, and
appellant was there. A.G. went to bed around 10:00 p.m., and,
at around 3:00 a.m., appellant woke her up and sexually
penetrated her. She reported the incident to the police the
January 20, 2016, respondent State of Minnesota charged
appellant with third-degree criminal sexual conduct in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(b) (2014).
Appellant pleaded not guilty. At the conclusion of his jury
trial, the jury found appellant guilty of the charged
offense. The district court sentenced appellant to 48 months
in prison, stayed the sentence, placed appellant on probation
for ten years, and imposed one year of local jail time. It
also imposed a $9, 000 fine, none of which was restitution to
A.G. This appeal from the judgment of conviction follows.
Minn. Stat. § 609.101, subd. 2, facially
unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clauses?
Minn. Stat. § 609.101, subd. 2, unconstitutional as
applied to appellant?
Did the district court abuse its discretion when ordered