Opinion
A20-1282
04-12-2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Dylan Alexander Domino, Appellant.
ORDER OPINION
Anoka County District Court
File Nos. 02-CR-17-5400, 02-CR-20-884, 02-CR-20-2367, 02-CR-20-2481 Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2019, appellant Dylan Alexander Domino was convicted for a pattern of stalking conduct and placed on probation for ten years. In 2020, the state charged Domino with fifth-degree drug possession and violation of a no-contact order against the same victim as his previous charge. The district court set unconditional bail at $100,000 and conditional bail at $50,000. The state initiated revocation proceedings on the previous charge based on the new charges. The district court set unconditional bail on the revocation matter at $20,000.
2. While Domino was detained in connection to these matters, the state charged him with two new violation-of-a-no-contact-order offenses against the same victim. The first charge alleged that Domino called the victim from jail. The district court set unconditional bail at $100,000. The second charge alleged that Domino sent graphic and intimidating letters to the victim. The district court released Domino on his own recognizance in this final new charge.
3. At a subsequent hearing, Domino (acting pro se) moved to modify the conditions of his release. Because there is no transcript in the appellate record, it is unclear what Domino requested and what the basis for his request was. According to the hearing minutes, the district court denied Domino's motion. Domino appealed the district court's decision.
4. On appeal, Domino broadly asserts that all monetary bail is unconstitutional because United States currency is an "un/non-constitutional form of currency." We reject Domino's arguments and affirm the district court for two reasons.
5. First, Domino's arguments rely on assertions about the state and federal governments that lack support in the record. And while Domino cites to some authorities in his appellate brief, none of them actually support his argument that the dollar is somehow unconstitutional. Because we do not consider assertions in an appellate brief with no "citation to legal authority in support of the allegations," we do not consider the merits of Domino's argument. State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 741 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
6. Second, we are unable to conduct meaningful review of the district court's bail determination because there is no transcript of any district court hearing in the appellate record. We have no record of the details of Domino's request, the district court's reasons for setting conditions of release, or the district court's reasons for denying Domino's motion. We must affirm the district court because meaningful review of the merits of the district court's bail settings is not possible without a transcript. See State v. Heithecker, 395 N.W.2d 382, 383 (Minn. App. 1986) (affirming district court because appellant failed to provide a trial transcript on appeal, and without a trial transcript it was impossible to judge the merits of the appeal); see also Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 1 (requiring the appellant to order a transcript if necessary for inclusion in the record on appeal).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district 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.
Dated: April 12, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Renee L. Worke