Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1600 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Harvey Mann Henry, Appellant. Filed January 9, 2012 Dismissed Hudson, Judge Dakota County District Court File No. 19-K1-07-000478 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Cheri Ann Townsend, Assistant County Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent) Harvey Mann Henry, Bayport, Minnesota (pro se appellant) Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Wright, Judge; and Connolly, Judge. SYLLABUS In the absence of a motion or petition, a letter response by the sentencing judge to a prisoner's inquiry about fines imposed does not constitute an appealable order. SPECIAL TERM OPINION HUDSON, Judge This court questioned jurisdiction over this appeal, which was filed by pro se appellant Harvey Mann Henry, from a letter that he received from a district court judge in

response to a letter sent by Henry to the judge.

Both parties filed jurisdictional

memoranda. We conclude that the judge's letter is not an appealable order, and we dismiss. FACTS Henry was convicted and sentenced in October 2007 to 288 months in prison for fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle, resulting in the death of one of Henry's passengers. At sentencing, the district court imposed a $77 surcharge and reserved the issue of restitution. Henry, who was represented by an assistant state public defender, filed a direct appeal in December 2007. The crime victim sought restitution in late January 2008, and the district court ordered restitution on February 15, 2008. Henry, who now claims that he did not receive notice of the victim's restitution request or the district court's restitution order, voluntarily dismissed his direct appeal in April 2008. In September 2008, Henry, who was still represented by counsel, filed a postconviction petition seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied the petition, and this court affirmed. Henry v. State, No. A09-0015, 2009 WL 3078457 (Minn. App. Sept. 29, 2009), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 2009). Henry's second and third postconviction petitions were filed pro se and were also denied by the district court. Henry did not file appeals from those orders. On August 2, 2011, Henry sent a letter to the district court judge who had sentenced him, inquiring about "the fines you imposed on me during sentencing in my case." The letter did not include any proof that it had been sent to the prosecutor. 2

On August 5, 2011, the district court judge responded to Henry by letter. The judge explained: "[T]he only amounts due are $77.00 for the surcharge, restitution of $976.44 and a court collector fee of $50.00 because these financial obligations were not paid in a timely manner and required the services of the court collectors." The judge further explained that, at sentencing, "you were advised that you would have to pay restitution," which was subsequently determined to be $976.44. Henry filed a notice of appeal in September 2011 from the judge's August 5 letter. This court questioned whether Henry's letter could be construed as a motion to correct a sentence or as a petition for postconviction relief, and whether the judge's letter should be treated as an appealable order. Henry filed a jurisdiction memorandum; the state filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. DECISION With some exceptions not applicable here, this court has jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the trial courts and of "interlocutory appeals and other matters as may be prescribed in the Rules of Appellate Procedure." Minn. Stat.

Download A11-1600, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Harvey Mann Henry, Appellant..pdf

Minnesota Law