Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota (2016)

Where compensation is readily available to a claimant from a collateral source, the claimant must take reasonable 6 steps to recoup from the collateral source before claiming reparations[.] Minn. Stat. § 611A.54(1). “[T]he term ‘reparations,’ as used in Minn. Stat. § 611A.53, is not synonymous with the term ‘restitution.’” Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Minn. 2016).

Relying on Franson, the state responds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pizarro-Rios’s March 2024 motion to correct his sentence because the court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to reimpose the conditional-release term in the February 20, 2018 sentencing order. 8 Appellate courts “review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, for an abuse of discretion.”…

DECISION Freeman argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting the victim’s untimely restitution request over his objection. “[A] restitution award is part of a sentence.” Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016).

Because restitution is part of a sentence, a defendant may challenge a restitution order through a motion to correct sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, if the defendant is “challeng[ing] the court’s legal authority to award restitution” and “the motion does not impact the underlying conviction.” Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359-60 (Minn. 2016).

Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 362 (Minn. 2016) (Evans IV).

Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016).

Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016).

On the other hand, a motion to correct a sentence should not be construed as a petition for postconviction relief “when the motion does not impact the underlying conviction.” Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Minn. 2016) (holding motion to correct sentence is proper method to challenge court’s legal authority to award restitution); see also Wayne v. State, 870 N.W.2d 389, 391 (Minn. 2015) (holding challenge to criminal conviction cannot be made via rule 27.03 “to circumve…

Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016).

See Evans, 880 N.W.2d at 360 (holding that “the term ‘reparations’ . . . is not synonymous with the term ‘restitution’ ” because “ ‘[r]eparations’ refers to payments by [the Board] to the five listed entities for economic losses [under Minn. Stat. § 611A.53, subd. 1], whereas restitution refers to payments by the defendant to the victim for qualified economic losses”).

See Evans v. State ( Evans IV ), 880 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2016).

See Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn.2016); see also State v, Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643, 648 (Minn.2011).