State of Minnesota v. Burt Gregory Alan Stover
A16-64
| Minn. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- On Dec. 31, 2014, Burt Stover pleaded guilty to terroristic threats under a plea agreement where the state would recommend the bottom of the presumptive range. A PSI assigned him a criminal-history score of 5; neither party disputed the PSI at sentencing and the court imposed a 23-month sentence.
- Stover moved under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9 to correct his sentence, arguing the state failed to prove by a fair preponderance that several out-of-state convictions (Idaho, Virginia, Oklahoma) and Virginia probation status were his and therefore should not have been included in the PSI.
- The district court granted an evidentiary hearing (though Stover did not request one). The state presented the PSI materials, an agent’s testimony, online court printouts, police reports, and judgment documents from the relevant jurisdictions.
- The district court found the state proved the Idaho aggravated-battery felony, the Virginia DWI and probation status, and the Oklahoma false-personation felony by a fair preponderance, and that the Idaho misdemeanors (battery and resisting) were properly scored.
- On appeal, Stover argued the evidence was insufficient (no certified records, lack of identifying information, offenses arising from a single incident, and that an Oklahoma conviction should not be treated as the Minnesota analogue). The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Stover's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state met its burden to prove out-of-state convictions by a fair preponderance | State failed to produce certified records or sufficiently-identifying proof linking convictions to Stover | Persuasive documentary substitutes and testimony can satisfy burden under Maley; certified copies not required if reasonable substitutes exist | Court: State met its burden; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Idaho aggravated-battery conviction: validity and felony equivalence under MN law | Idaho printouts lack identifying info and certified records; state not reasonably diligent | Case documents, police reports, and repository printouts identified Stover and showed sentence >1 year; felony by MN definition | Court: Evidence sufficient; felony equivalence established |
| Virginia DWI conviction and probation status at time of offense | State did not adequately prove probation status | State produced Virginia court online record showing DWI conviction, DOB, and 365-day unsupervised probation; Stover’s own memorandum acknowledged probation | Court: Sufficient proof that Stover was convicted and on probation during underlying offense |
| Oklahoma false-personation: whether conviction equates to a Minnesota felony | Oklahoma offense not equivalent; fingerprint card use insufficient to prove the Minnesota analogue | Charging and judgment documents show false personation with intent to defraud and a 10-year sentence; elements align under Mathis/modified-categorical approach | Court: Oklahoma conviction corresponds to Minnesota false-impersonation felony; properly counted as felony |
| Idaho misdemeanors: whether multiple convictions arose from a single behavioral incident (affecting unit count) | Idaho convictions may be single incident and thus not multiple units | Stover failed to comply with Rule 27.03 to properly raise and document this challenge | Court: Issue forfeited under Rule 27.03; alternatively, even excluding Idaho misdemeanors score would be unchanged |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141 (Minn. 2007) (criminal-history score may be challenged and corrected at any time)
- State v. Outlaw, 748 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. App. 2008) (state bears burden to prove facts necessary to consider out-of-state convictions)
- State v. Maley, 714 N.W.2d 708 (Minn. App. 2006) (certified record not required if persuasive substitute evidence suffices)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (U.S. 2016) (use modified categorical approach when statute is divisible to determine elements of conviction)
- State v. Piri, 204 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 1973) (defendant must properly put contested prior-conviction matters in issue to shift burden to state)
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (appellate courts generally will not consider issues not properly presented to the trial court)