Opinion
A20-0488
10-05-2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Terry Allen Stewart, Appellant.
Otter Tail County District Court File No. 56-CR-19-2678
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Cleary, Judge.ORDER OPINION
Denise D. Reilly Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. This is a direct appeal from appellant Terry Allen Stewart's conviction for failing to register as a predatory offender. In 2009, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant with assault, kidnapping, and other charges. Appellant pleaded guilty to assault pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, and the remaining charges were dismissed. Appellant was thereafter required to register as a predatory offender as a result of the dismissed kidnapping charge. In 2019, the state learned that appellant failed to register his correct primary address with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The state charged appellant with failing to register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a)(1) (2018). Appellant pleaded guilty to this offense.
2. On appeal, appellant argues for the first time that the registration statute is unconstitutional as applied to him and that he is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea. We determined that appellant failed to establish a violation of his constitutional rights and affirmed the conviction. State v. Stewart, A20-0488, 2021 WL 79322 (Minn.App. Jan. 11, 2021), vacated (Minn. June 15, 2021) (mem.). The Minnesota Supreme Court granted a petition for further review and stayed the proceedings pending its decision in State v. Werlich, 958 N.W.2d 354 (Minn. 2021). After the supreme court issued its opinion in Werlich in April 2021, it vacated this court's opinion in this case and remanded for reconsideration of appellant's constitutional claims in light of Werlich's holding.
3. Appellant argues that the registration statute (1) violates his substantive-due-process rights; (2) violates his procedural-due-process rights under the stigma-plus doctrine and the Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense; and (3) violates the separation-of-powers doctrine. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Ness, 834 N.W.2d 177, 181 (Minn. 2013).
4. Appellant clarified at oral argument that he is raising an as-applied challenge, as opposed to a facial challenge, to the constitutionality of the registration statute. An as-applied challenge requires a reviewing court to "assess the contours of due process against a fully-developed record." Id. at 183 n.4; see also Medill v. State, 477 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Minn. 1991) (requiring reviewing court to evaluate impact of statute "as applied to the facts of the instant case"). Here, because this argument was not first raised in the district court, the factual record is insufficient for this court to determine whether appellant's constitutional rights were violated by application of the registration statute's requirements in his specific circumstances. When a party raises a claim that relies on evidence not in the record on appeal, a reviewing court may decline to reach the merits of that claim and instead permit the party to raise the issue in a petition for postconviction relief See State v. Gustafson, 610 N.W.2d 314, 321 (Minn. 2000) (affirming defendant's conviction without prejudice and allowing defendant to raise the claim in postconviction proceeding). The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the basis of the record currently available to this court.
5. Given the lack of a factual record regarding the application of the registration statute to appellant, we decline to reach the merits of his as-applied constitutional challenges. Appellant may raise these issues in a postconviction petition, where any relevant facts may be properly developed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The decision of the district court 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.