Opinion
A21-1314
04-15-2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Ashley Monique Swart, Appellant.
St. Louis County District Court File No. 69HI-CR-20-908
Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
DEMSE REILLY JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In December 2020, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Ashley Monique Swart with receiving stolen property and impaired driving, among other charges. Swart pleaded guilty to these two charges under a negotiated plea agreement. The district court sentenced Swart to 17 months in prison, stayed execution of the sentence, and placed her on probation for three years. The district court ordered Swart to follow the recommendations of probation.
2. In April 2021, probation reported that Swart violated the terms of her probation and recommended executing her stayed sentence. The district court held a probation violation hearing. The district court sentenced Swart on two other, unrelated criminal cases to 65 months in prison and 85 months in prison. In this case, the district court (1) continued Swart's probation for receiving stolen property; and (2) sentenced Swart to 90 days in prison for impaired driving with credit for time served.
3. Following the hearing, the district court issued an amended warrant of commitment. The warrant of commitment revoked Swart's probation and committed her to the Commissioner of Corrections for 17 months.
4. Swart argues, and the state concedes, that she is entitled to reinstatement of probation because the amended warrant of commitment contradicts the district court's oral pronouncement at the hearing continuing probation.
5. We review de novo whether a sentence is authorized by law. State v. Williams, 771 N.W.2d 514, 520 (Minn. 2009). When pronouncing a sentence, a district court must state its precise terms, including the length of a stay and any probation conditions. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(A), (E). When a district court's oral sentencing pronouncement conflicts with the warrant of commitment, the oral pronouncement controls. State v. Staloch, 643 N.W.2d 329, 331 (Minn.App. 2002). A reviewing court may only look to a warrant of commitment when the "orally pronounced sentence is ambiguous." Id. Additionally, the court may correct clerical errors in the warrant of commitment at any time. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 10. But where the actual sentence pronounced is clear and unambiguous, then "the oral pronouncement controls." Staloch, 643 N.W.2d at 332.
6. Here, the district court stated on the record at the probation violation hearing that Swart would be "committed to the Commissioner of Corrections for a period of seventeen months. That'll be stayed for a period of three years and [you will be] placed on probation . . . subject to the conditions we imposed before." This pronouncement is clear and unambiguous. The amended warrant of commitment contradicts the district court's oral pronouncement. Applying Staloch, we remand for correction of Swart's sentence.
The state requests a new postconviction hearing for a review of the Austin factors. See State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980) (requiring district court to make specific findings before revoking a defendant's probation). The state does not provide any authority for this request, which is not supported by caselaw. Austin factors are only required when a district court revokes probation, not when a district court maintains probation, as it did here. We therefore reject this request.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is remanded for correction of sentence.
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.