State of Minnesota v. Travis William Mylo Cleary
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 48
Minn. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree drug sales, received an 81-month sentence stayed for 10 years with probation, and was required to complete Southwest Community Drug Court (SCDC).
- Over 13 months the appellant maintained sobriety and stability but committed seven drug-court rule violations; the seventh involved dishonesty about a hand injury and threats toward another participant.
- The drug court team (which includes the drug court judge) reached a consensus to terminate the appellant from drug court; termination was a probation violation and the sole basis for a subsequent probation-revocation proceeding.
- The same drug court judge who participated in the termination presided over the contested probation-revocation hearing after the chief judge denied appellant’s motion to disqualify that judge.
- The drug court judge revoked probation, executed 68 months of the sentence, and appellant appealed, arguing denial of due process because the presiding judge was not a neutral, detached decisionmaker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant was denied a neutral and detached decisionmaker at the probation revocation hearing | The drug court judge was directly involved in the team decision to terminate appellant and had a personal, ongoing relationship with participant; an objective observer would question the judge’s impartiality | The judge’s drug-court role does not disqualify him; learned information was "nonpersonal" and judges can set aside prior knowledge; prior judicial participation alone seldom shows bias | Court held judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned because he participated in the team termination decision and had intimate, confidential involvement with the participant; recusal required and revocation vacated and remanded for hearing before a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process requires neutral, detached decisionmaker for parole revocations)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (extends Morrissey protections to probation revocations)
- Beaulieu v. State, 859 N.W.2d 275 (standard of appellate review for due-process claims)
- Finch v. State, 865 N.W.2d 696 (judge disqualified where prior statements showed inability to remain impartial)
- Dorsey v. State, 701 N.W.2d 238 (presumption judges can set aside prior knowledge; automatic reversal when deprived of impartial judge)
- Pratt v. State, 813 N.W.2d 868 (definition of impartiality; objective-layperson standard)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (factors for whether appearance-of-bias requires reversal)
- Powell v. Anderson, 660 N.W.2d 107 (application of appearance-of-partiality principles)