Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a district court may extend probation up to the statutory maximum when a defendant violates probation by failing to pay court-ordered restitution. The court determined that Minn. Stat. §§ 609.135 and 609.14 authorize extensions beyond the one-year periods specified in § 609.135, subd. 2(g), which permits extensions beyond the statutory maximum in limited circumstances. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for a new hearing because the defendant had not been represented by counsel at the hearing imposing the five-year extension.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2(g), limits a district court to one-year extensions, with one possible additional one-year extension, when extending probation because of unpaid restitution.
- Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 3, and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.04 authorize a district court to extend probation for a probation violation based on unpaid restitution up to the statutory maximum term for the underlying offense.
- Whether the State's appeal was ripe or moot after Barrientos was discharged from probation.
- Whether Barrientos's payment of the required minimum monthly installments prevented a finding that she violated the restitution condition.
- Whether the initial five-year extension could be reinstated despite Barrientos's lack of counsel at the extension hearing.
Holdings
- Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2(g), is not the exclusive source of authority for extending probation based on unpaid restitution. A district court may act under Minn. Stat. § 609.14, subd. 3, and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.04 when a defendant violates a restitution condition.
- When acting under section 609.14 and Rule 27.04, a district court may extend probation based on unpaid restitution up to the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for the underlying offense, but may not extend the total probation term beyond that statutory maximum.
- Section 609.135, subd. 2(g), provides a limited vehicle for extending probation beyond the statutory maximum for unpaid restitution, for up to two one-year periods; it does not limit extensions that remain within the statutory maximum.
- A defendant violates a restitution condition when the payment structure requires both minimum periodic payments and payment of the entire restitution balance by the end of probation, even if the defendant made the required minimum monthly payments.
- A district court may not extend probation without affording the defendant the procedural protections applicable to probation-violation proceedings, including the right to counsel.
- The State's appeal was ripe and was not rendered moot by Barrientos's provisional discharge from probation.
Key quotations
“Our holding today concludes only that a district court has the statutory authority to extend a term of probation up to the statutory maximum based on the probationer’s failure to pay the full amount of restitution by the end of the original probation term, and that authority is not limited by Minn.Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2(g).” (at 305)
“Therefore, we remand to the district court to conduct a new hearing that comports with these procedural safeguards before determining whether to reinstate the five-year extension of probation previously ordered.” (at 305)
Factual background
Barrientos pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and received a stayed 23-month prison sentence with five years of probation. Restitution of $21,437.60 was imposed as a probation condition, and although Barrientos made the revised minimum monthly payments, she still owed more than $20,000 shortly before probation expired. The district court initially extended probation for five years to facilitate payment, but later reduced the extension to one year after concluding that the restitution-specific statute limited its authority.
Procedural history
Barrientos pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and received a stayed 23-month prison sentence with five years of probation and restitution conditions. Shortly before probation expired, the district court initially extended probation for five years because substantial restitution remained unpaid, but later reduced the extension to one year after concluding that Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2(g), imposed a one-year limit. The court of appeals affirmed. During the appeal, Barrientos was discharged from probation provisionally, subject to possible reinstatement if the Supreme Court reversed.
Remand instructions
The court of appeals was reversed, and the matter was remanded to the district court for a new hearing complying with the procedural safeguards of Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.04, including the right to counsel, before determining whether to reinstate the previously ordered five-year probation extension.