Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota, 2016 Minn. LEXIS 337

Harry Jerome Evans was convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer and sentenced to life without release; the court ordered $7,500 restitution to the Crime Victims Reparations Board (CVRB).
Evans’ direct appeal affirmed the conviction (State v. Evans). Years later (March 2015) Evans filed a motion to correct his sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, challenging the restitution award.
The district court denied the motion as untimely under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b), because Evans did not request a hearing within 30 days of receiving notice of the restitution request.
Evans argued the district court lacked authority to order restitution to the CVRB and that the $7,500 amount lacked record support.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether Rule 27.03, subd. 9, can be used to challenge restitution awards, (2) whether the court had authority to award restitution to the CVRB, and (3) whether Evans’ challenge to amount/type of restitution was time-barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper procedural vehicle to challenge restitution	Evans: Rule 27.03, subd. 9 may be used to correct unauthorized sentence components, including restitution	State: Rule 27.03 is limited to unlawful sentence duration; other challenges require postconviction relief	Rule 27.03 may be used to challenge the court’s legal authority to award restitution so long as it does not affect the underlying conviction or implicate plea bargains
Court’s authority to order restitution to CVRB	Evans: CVRB is not listed as an entity entitled to reparations under Minn. Stat. § 611A.53, so court lacked authority to order restitution to CVRB	State: CVRB has statutory authority to seek restitution and subrogation rights after paying reparations (it stands in victim’s shoes)	Court has statutory authority to award restitution to the CVRB; statutory procedures were followed
Timeliness of challenge to amount/type of restitution	Evans: (implicitly) his motion should be considered despite timing; he also later raised a constitutional separation‑of‑powers argument	State: Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b) requires a written hearing request within 30 days of notification; Evans missed the deadline	Challenges to amount/type of restitution are governed by the 30‑day statutory window; Evans’ motion was untimely and properly denied

Johnson v. State, 801 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. 2011) (limits on Rule 27.03 where relief implicates plea validity)
Borg, 834 N.W.2d 194 (Minn. 2013) (restitution is part of a sentence)
Schnagl, 859 N.W.2d 297 (Minn. 2015) (sentence unauthorized if contrary to law)
Humes, 581 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 1998) (definition of unauthorized sentence)
Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011) (§ 611A.045(3)(b) governs disputes over amount/type of restitution)
Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. 2015) (Rule 27.03 inapplicable when relief would affect plea agreement)
Riggs, 865 N.W.2d 679 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishing reparations from restitution)
Hughes v. State, 815 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2012) (CVRB empowered to seek restitution on behalf of victims)
Palubicki, 727 N.W.2d 662 (Minn. 2007) (CVRB restitution requests may seek reimbursement for funeral expenses)
RAM Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rohde, 820 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2012) (discussion of subrogation principles)
State v. Evans, 756 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 2008) (direct appeal affirming conviction)
Nunn v. State, 868 N.W.2d 230 (Minn. 2015) (standard of review for denial of Rule 27.03 motion)
Garcia, 582 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. 1998) (consequences of correcting sentence that was part of plea agreement)