State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu
2015 Minn. LEXIS 43
| Minn. | 2015Background
- Beaulieu pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary in 2010; the district court stayed a 57‑month sentence and placed him on 20 years’ probation.
- Two separate probation-violation proceedings occurred: the first resulted in continued probation after Beaulieu admitted a violation; the second led to an admit/deny hearing where Beaulieu admitted violations and the court subsequently revoked probation and executed the 57‑month sentence.
- The district court never read the Rule 27.04/Morrissey rights advisory on the record at any of the hearings.
- Beaulieu raised on appeal (for the first time) that the court violated (1) a constitutional "right to be advised" of Morrissey due‑process rights and (2) the procedural requirement of Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04; he also argued he did not knowingly waive those rights.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed: it held no separate constitutional right to be advised existed, applied the plain‑error framework to the Rule 27.04 violation (finding error but no prejudice), and declined to reverse based on the unpreserved Rule 27.04 violation.
Issues
| Issue | Beaulieu's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probationer has a separate constitutional right "to be advised" of Morrissey due‑process rights before admitting a violation | Beaulieu: Court must personally advise probationer of Morrissey rights; failure to do so violates due process and requires reversal | State: Morrissey guarantees procedural protections but does not create a freestanding constitutional right to an on‑the‑record advising; representation by counsel and existing procedures suffice | Held: No separate constitutional right to be advised; because no such constitutional right was established, forfeiture bars relief on that theory |
| Whether failure to give the Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04 advisory requires reversal under plain‑error review | Beaulieu: Rule 27.04 is mandatory; failing to give the advisory is plain error that affected substantial rights | State: The omission was error but Beaulieu cannot show prejudice — counsel represented him and he admitted violations — so substantial rights were not affected | Held: Court finds plain error present (rule violated) but Beaulieu failed to show it affected substantial rights or the outcome; no reversal |
| Whether Beaulieu knowingly and voluntarily waived Morrissey/Gagnon rights | Beaulieu: He did not knowingly waive rights because he was never advised on the record; silence or counsel’s presence cannot substitute for a personal waiver | State: Representation by counsel and the record (counsel’s statements and admissions) support an inference of waiver | Held (majority): The Court did not treat waiver as an independent basis for relief and declined to decide it; dissent would find no valid waiver and would remand for a new revocation hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (establishes minimum procedural due‑process protections for parole revocation)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (applies Morrissey protections to probation revocation)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (describes forfeiture and the availability of plain‑error review)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (sets plain‑error prongs framework)
- Kuhlmann v. State, 806 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. 2011) (applies plain‑error review to failure to obtain a personal waiver of jury trial)
- United States v. Correa‑Torres, 326 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2003) (examines whether Morrissey/Gagnon rights may be waived by implication and finds waiver cannot be presumed without evidence)
- United States v. LeBlanc, 175 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 1999) (addresses the knowing and voluntary waiver of Morrissey rights)