Opinion
A21-1122
03-04-2022
State of Minnesota, et al., Respondents, v. H. J. L., Appellant.
Kandiyohi County District Court File No. 34-CV-AD-21-6
Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
ORDER OPINION
DIANE B. BRATVOLD, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant H.J.L. seeks review of the district court's denial of his petition for expungement. His petition sought to expunge two 1982 convictions: one for aggravated robbery under Minn. Stat. § 609.245 (1982), and one for burglary with a tool under Minn. Stat. § 609.58, subd. 2(1)(a) (1982).
2. Briefly, H.J.L.'s convictions involved a robbery at the Kandi Entertainment Center in Willmar in September 1982 and a burglary at Taco John's in Willmar in August 1982. Though H.J.L. was 17 when he committed the offenses, H.J.L. was certified and prosecuted as an adult. In November 1982, H.J.L. pleaded guilty. He was convicted, sentenced concurrently to serve 54 months' confinement on the robbery and 366 days' confinement on the burglary, and committed to the commissioner of corrections. His sentence was later discharged.
3. In February 2021, H.J.L. petitioned for expungement under Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 2(1) (2020), which provides for petitions to expunge conviction records for juveniles prosecuted as adults. H.J.L.'s petition averred that expungement was proper as he had "not repeated the criminal mistakes of [his] teenage years" and "[p]ublic safety would in no way be disadvantaged by these convictions being expunged."
4. H.J.L.'s petition also stated that he was seeking to expunge these convictions in part because they were used "against" him in a 2008 civil-commitment proceeding that led to his indefinite commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a "sexually dangerous person." H.J.L.'s petition averred that, upon his release, "the record of those convictions [would] unduly and harshly prejudice [him] in the eyes of all potential employers, housing providers, and the 'public at large.'" H.J.L.'s petition also described steps taken toward rehabilitation.
5. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) objected to the expungement petition. After a hearing in May 2021, the district court denied H.J.L.'s petition. The district court concluded, "[H.J.L.] is ineligible for expungement given the offenses for which expungement is requested are not included per 609A.02, subd. 3(b). Further, [H.J.L.] did not successfully complete probation from the underlying offense, subject to the expungement request per 609A.02, subd. (2)."
6. H.J.L. appeals. We review a district court's order denying expungement for an abuse of discretion. State v. C.W.N., 906 N.W.2d 549, 551 (Minn.App. 2018). We review the district court's interpretation and application of the expungement statutes de novo. Id. at 552.
7. H.J.L. raises three issues. First, he argues that the district court erred by applying subdivisions 3(b) and 2(2) of Minn. Stat. § 609A.02 (2020) rather than subdivision 2(1), which is cited in his petition. As part of this argument, H.J.L. contends that the district court erred in overlooking the 12 factors set forth in Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c) (2020).
8. We decline to decide the first issue because we have an inadequate record. The record on appeal includes "[t]he documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any." Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01. While we have the documents and exhibits filed in the district court, we lack a transcript of the proceedings held in May 2021.
9. As appellant, H.J.L. has the duty to order any transcripts "deemed necessary for inclusion in the record." Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 1; see also Truesdale v. Friedman, 127 N.W.2d 277, 279 (Minn. 1964) ("[T]he party seeking review has the duty to see that the appellate court is presented with a record which is sufficient to show the alleged errors and all matters necessary for consideration of the questions presented.").
10. H.J.L., however, did not provide this court with the transcript of the district court hearing on his petition. While we have the district court's order, it may not include the district court's findings and reasoning. As we made clear in State v. H.A., a district court's order in an expungement proceeding may be informal and may be made orally- no written order is necessary. 716 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Minn.App. 2006) ("While we appreciate the informality of expungement proceedings, we are unable to review whether a grant or denial of expungement constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the district court makes findings or determinations on the record regarding these factors." (emphasis added)).
11. Because we do not have a transcript of the May 2021 hearing, we cannot review the sufficiency of the district court's analysis. See generally State v. Heithecker, 395 N.W.2d 382, 383 (Minn.App. 1986) ("[A] reviewing court cannot consider a sufficiency-of-evidence issue unless provided with a trial transcript." (quotation omitted)); Custom Farm Servs., Inc. v. Collins, 238 N.W.2d 608, 608 (Minn. 1976) (holding that, without transcripts, the court could not review issues on appeal related to sufficiency of the evidence and counsel's misconduct). Thus, the record presented is insufficient for us to review the merits of the first issue. See Gail v. State, 732 N.W.2d 243, 247 (Minn. 2007) ("Without a transcript, we cannot analyze the merits of [appellant]'s claim.").
12. Second, H.J.L. contends that an expungement petition under section 609A.02 leads to "mandatory statutory expungement." We disagree. Even if we assume H.J.L. satisfies the eligibility criteria, section 609A.02 merely permits the filing of an expungement petition. Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 2 (2020) ("A petition for the sealing of a conviction record may be filed . . . ." (emphasis added)). Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c) then sets forth the factors the district court must consider when deciding whether to grant such a petition. Thus, granting an expungement petition is discretionary with the district court. C.W.N., 906 N.W.2d at 551. Here, the parties agree that H.J.L. had a right to petition under subdivision 2(1), but that does not mean that he was entitled to "mandatory statutory expungement."
13. Third, H.J.L. argues that the district court "fail[ed] to provide [him] a full and fair hearing" when it "deliberate[ly] misinterpret[ed]" his petition. H.J.L. points to the district court's use of an incorrect form for its order as evidence that the district court ruled in an "unprofessional" and "lackadaisical" manner. H.J.L. argues that the district court violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and asks us to file a complaint with the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards.
14. It is accurate that the district court used a form apparently intended for landlord-tenant disputes. The district court, however, added language specific to H.J.L.'s petition.
15. We decline to address H.J.L.'s third issue because H.J.L. provides no legal authority for his request or any factual support for his allegation that the district court denied his petition in bad faith. An assignment of error based on "mere assertion" and not supported by argument or authority is waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection. Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971); Ganguli v. Univ. of Minn., 512 N.W.2d 918, 919 n.1 (Minn.App. 1994) (declining to address allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation). Finally, any error is harmless. Minn. R. Civ. P. 61 (instructing "[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding" to disregard harmless error).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order denying H.J.L.'s expungement petition 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.