Opinion
A21-0476
09-27-2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Troy Young Anderson, Appellant.
Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CR-18-8305
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Bryan, Judge.ORDER OPINION
Matthew E. Johnson Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Troy Young Anderson appeals from a finding that he violated a condition of his probation. The state concedes that the district court erred. Therefore, we reverse the finding of a probation violation.
2. In February 2020, Anderson pleaded guilty to the offense of interference with the privacy of a minor, in violation of Minn. Stat.§ 609.746, subd. 1 (e)(2) (2018). At a sentencing hearing in June 2020, the district court stayed imposition of sentence and placed Anderson on probation with several conditions. At the same time, the district court issued a probationary domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO), which prohibited Anderson from having contact "directly, indirectly or through others, in person, by telephone, in writing, electronically or by any other means" with his former wife and their two children.
3. On August 25, 2020, Anderson's probation officer fled a violation report alleging that, on August 24, 2020, Anderson violated the probationary DANCO by having indirect contact with his children by sending "letters and gifts ... to his children through his parents."
4. In March 2021, the district court conducted a contested probation-violation hearing via an interactive video-conferencing platform. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court fund that Anderson had violated a condition of his probation. The district court ordered an updated psychological evaluation, ordered Anderson to serve 30 days in the workhouse as an intermediate sanction, and reinstated probation. Anderson appeals.
5. The state has the burden of proving a probation violation by clear and convincing evidence. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04, subd. 2(1)(c)b. "If a probation violation has been established, the [ district] court has broad discretion in determining whether to impose an intermediate sanction." State v. Cottew, 746 N.W.2d 632, 638 (Minn. 2008). But a district court has no discretion to impose an intermediate sanction if the state has not proved a probation violation by clear and convincing evidence. See id
6. Anderson argues that the district court erred by finding that he violated a probation condition when his parents delivered letters and gifts to his children. Anderson contends that he did not violate a probation condition because he wrote the letters and purchased and wrapped the gifts in December 2018, approximately one and one-half years before the district court issued the probationary DANCO in June 2020, and because he took no action thereafter to cause his parents to deliver the letters and gifts.
7. The state has filed a letter in lieu of a brief. The letter states, "The State concedes that the record and the findings at the March 24, 2021 contested probation revocation hearing do not meet the legal standard required for this Court to affirm the district court's ruling."
8. For purposes of this appeal, we accept the state's concession and conclude that the evidence does not support the district court's finding that Anderson violated a condition of his probation. Thus, the district court erred by finding a probation violation and by ordering intermediate relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is reversed.
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.