Opinion
A23-1073
02-28-2024
Eric Clayton Nord, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Becker County District Court File No. 03-CR-19-401
Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Eric Clayton Nord in a single complaint with offenses related to two separate incidents. Two counts related to a burglary of L.K.'s home. The missing items included two firearms (one shotgun and one semi-automatic rifle) and documents. Two counts related to the sale of a firearm that occurred shortly after the burglary. An informant met Nord in a garage. Nord presented a shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle. The informant bought the semi-automatic rifle with buy money. Officers stopped Nord and located the buy money. In the garage, officers found L.K.'s shotgun and documents. Documents belonging to Nord were commingled with L.K.'s property.
2. A jury found Nord not guilty of the counts related to the burglary. The jury found Nord guilty of the counts related to the sale of the firearm-receiving stolen property and being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm. Nord filed a direct appeal. This court affirmed Nord's convictions and the supreme court denied his petition for further review. See State v. Nord, No. A20-0890 (Minn.App. May 3, 2021), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2021).
3. In May 2020, L.K. filed an affidavit for restitution. Nord filed a challenge, and the district court scheduled a hearing. Nord agreed to continue the hearing until his appeal was decided. In February 2021, Nord withdrew his challenge to restitution. On March 3, 2021, the district court ordered Nord to pay for L.K.'s losses.
4. On January 19, 2023, Nord filed a petition for postconviction relief, seeking reversal of the order for restitution. The postconviction court denied Nord's petition, concluding that Nord waived his right to contest the restitution order because he withdrew his challenge. Because there was no restitution hearing, the postconviction court also determined that "the record is void of sufficient facts to determine whether the items in the [o]rder of [r]estitution . . . are 'directly caused by' the crime of [r]eceiving [s]tolen [p]roperty."
5. Nord now argues that the postconviction court abused its discretion by denying him relief. See Andersen v. State, 913 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Minn. 2018) (stating that we review denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion). "A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
6. Nord argues that the restitution order should be reversed because the losses he was ordered to pay were not directly caused by his crimes of conviction. Nord argues that his case is like a nonprecedential case in which we concluded that the state failed to prove that the receipt of a stolen component directly caused the victims' losses. See State v. Hirman, A18-1457, 2019 WL 6279356, at *3 (Minn.App. Nov. 25, 2019). But in Hirman there was a restitution hearing. Id. at *1. Here, Nord withdrew his restitution challenge. Because there was no hearing, the postconviction court stated that there is no record showing whether the losses are directly caused by the crime of receiving stolen property. This is not an abuse of discretion.
7. Nord concedes that he "did not challenge restitution below." But he claims that he did not forfeit his right to contest the restitution order because he is challenging the district court's legal authority to order restitution. Nord relies on State v. Gaiovnik, in which the district court ordered restitution when the victim did not request it. 794 N.W.2d 643, 645 (Minn. 2011). Gaiovnik argued that "he did not waive the right to appeal the issue of the district court's legal authority to award restitution in the absence of a request." Id. at 647. The supreme court agreed, holding that statutory procedures for restitution orders "do not apply when . . . an offender challenges the district court's legal authority to award restitution." Id.
8. Nord suggests that he, similarly, raises a challenge to the district court's authority to order restitution. But unlike Gaiovnik, in which the district court ordered restitution in the absence of a request, L.K. requested restitution. The district court had to determine whether the requested items of loss were directly connected to the offense of conviction. Because Nord withdrew his challenge, as the postconviction court stated, "the record is void of sufficient facts to determine whether the [losses] . . . are 'directly caused by' the crime of [r]eceiving [s]tolen [p]roperty." While Nord frames his challenge as a legal issue, the postconviction court correctly determined that it required "sufficient facts" to reach its decision. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The postconviction court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.