State v. Gaiovnik
794 N.W.2d 643
| Minn. | 2011Background
- Gaiovnik and Landvik robbed Hollister employees in the Rosedale Mall on Dec. 10, 2007, with the stolen amount at least $19,200.
- The district court sentenced Gaiovnik and ordered restitution to Hollister as part of the sentence.
- No victim restitution request was contained in the record from Hollister or the employees.
- Gaiovnik argued the court lacked authority to order restitution absent a victim request.
- The court of appeals held that Gaiovnik waived his right to challenge restitution by not timely objecting under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045(3)(b), and did not address the court’s authority to award restitution without a victim request.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court held (1) the procedural requirements in § 611A.045(3)(b) do not apply to challenges to the court’s legal authority to order restitution, and (2) the district court had statutory authority to order restitution absent a victim’s request under Minn. Stat. § 609.10 and §§ 611A.04, 611A.045.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated § 611A.04/045 by ordering restitution without a victim request. | Gaiovnik: restitution requires a victim’s request. | State: court authority to order restitution exists without a victim request. | No; procedural 611A.045(3)(b) does not apply to challenges to the court’s authority. |
| Whether the district court had statutory authority to order restitution absent a victim request. | Gaiovnik: authority limited by victim request language. | State: authority exists under § 609.10 and harmonized with §§ 611A.04, 611A.045. | Yes; district court may order restitution without a victim request. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fader, 358 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. 1984) (requires factual basis for restitution and authority to order)
- In re Welfare of H.A.D., 764 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 2009) (distinguishes when victim requests restitution; procedural context)
- State v. Henderson, 706 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 2005) (sentencing issues may be raised at sentencing)
- State v. Losh, 721 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. 2006) (statutes setting appeal timing; separation of powers concerns)
- Roby v. State, 787 N.W.2d 186 (Minn. 2010) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)