State v. BatzerState v. Batzer
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Stone
OPINION
BRUCE C. STONE, Judge.
This is аn appeal challenging the trial court’s interpretation of
FACTS
On October 24, 1988, appellant was charged with driving 82 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone, a violation of
At the pretrial hearing, the proseсutor moved the court to certify the case as a petty misdemeanor pursuant to
The trial court ruled that
ISSUE
Does
ANALYSIS
The standard of review in cases involving statutory construction is a matter of law which the court of appeals can address without deference to the trial court. State v. Montpetit, 445 N.W.2d 571 (Minn.Ct.App.1989) pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1989); see also Durfee v. Rod Baxter Imports, Inc., 262 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Minn.1977).
Charged with a misdemeanor, appellant would have been entitled to a jury trial.
The supreme court shall have the power to regulate the pleadings, practice, procedure, and the forms thereof in criminal actions in all courts of this state, by rules promulgated by it from time to time. Such rules shall not abridge, en *567 large, or modify the substantive rights of any person.
There exists a conflict between
Except as provided in subdivision 2 [not applicable in the instant case], an allеged misdemeanor violation must be treated as a petty misdemeanor if the prosecuting attorney believes that it is in the interest of justice that the defendant not be imprisoned if convicted and certifies that belief to the court at or bеfore the time of arraignment or pretrial hearing, and the court approves the certification motion. The defendant’s consent to the certification is not required. When an offense is certified as a petty misdemeanor under this sеction, the defendant’s eligibility for court-appointed counsel must be evaluated as though the offense were a misdemeanor.
(Emphasis added).
If at or before the time of arraignment or trial on an alleged misdemeanor violation, the prosecuting attorney certifies to the court that in his opinion it is in the interest of justice that the defendant not be incarceratеd if convicted, the alleged offense shall be treated as a petty misdemeanor if the defendant consents and the court approves.
(Emphasis added).
The enabling legislation for the Rules of Criminal Procedure directly addresses this problem. State v. Lopez, 390 N.W.2d 306, 308 (Minn.Ct.App.1986).
Present statutes relating to the pleadings, practice, proсedure, and the forms thereof in criminal actions shall be effective until modified or superseded by court rule. If a rule is prоmulgated pursuant to this section which is in conflict with a statute, the statute shall thereafter be of no force and effeсt. Notwithstanding any rule however, the following statutes remain in full force and effect:
(a) Statutes which relate to substantive criminal law, found in chapters 609, 617 and 624 except for sections 609.-115 and 609.145.
The disposition of this case, therefore, rests upon the determination of whether certification of a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor relates to procedural or to substantive law.
The Minnesota Supreme Court discussed what constitutes substantive law in State v. Wingo, 266 N.W.2d 508, 513 (Minn.1978):
By substantive rights the legislature was referring to statutes which declare what acts аre crimes and prescribe punishment for their violation, rather than statutes which regulate the steps by which the guilt or innocence of one who is accused of violating a criminal statute is determined.
Id. at 513.
In Stern v. Dill, 442 N.W.2d 322 (Minn.1989), the court defined substantive law as “that pаrt of the law which creates, defines, and regulates rights, as opposed to ‘adjective or remedial’ law, which prescribes methods of enforcing the rights in obtaining redress for their invasion.” Id. at 324.
Although on its face the certification process looks procedural because it is regulating the steps by which a charge is downgraded to a less severe offense, it in fact creates a different classification of offense with a different potential penalty. In Minnesota, crimes аre classified by the legislature and defined as felony, gross misdemeanor, misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor.
By applying the rules derived from
Stern
and
Wingo,
we conclude that the certification of a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor is substantive law requiring
Finally, appellant argues that in order for
“The decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring * * * generally rests entirely in [the prosecutor’s] discretion.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 1530, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985) (citing Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364, 98 S.Ct. 663, 668, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1968)).
By certifying a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor, the prosеcutor is simply exercising prosecutorial discretion in determining which charge to bring. By allowing certification under
The supreme court has vоluntarily confined its rulemaking authority to that provided for in
DECISION
The trial court properly determined the certification of a misdemeanor as a petty misdemeanor is governed by
Affirmed.