State v. Crist

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Crow Wing County District Court File No. 18-CR-20-2177

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, Janine LePage, Assistant County Attorney, Brainerd, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.

BJORKMAN, Judge

Appellant challenges the denial of his request at sentencing to receive custody credit for time spent in an inpatient treatment facility. Because the restrictions imposed by the facility are not the functional equivalent of restrictions imposed by a jail, we affirm.

2

FACTS

Appellant Jeffrey Alan Crist was charged with several offenses in connection with a June 2020 incident of domestic assault. He was taken into custody on June 24. In September, the district court granted his request for an extended furlough to attend inpatient treatment at Douglas Place, a chemical-dependency treatment facility in East Grand Forks. The furlough order provided that if Crist left Douglas Place without permission, he would be subject to arrest and face escape-from-custody charges. Crist remained in treatment at Douglas Place from September 18 to November 3.

Crist subsequently pleaded guilty to two counts of felony domestic assault. At sentencing, Crist argued that he was entitled to custody credit against his concurrent 24-and 27-month sentences for the 47 days he spent at Douglas Place.^[1] He submitted his own supporting affidavit and a sworn letter from the facility's treatment director.

Crist averred that he considered himself to be in custody while at Douglas Place. He stated that he was not allowed freedoms other patients enjoyed, including the ability to "leave the facility to go shopping and do other normal activities." He described being confined in a locked room that was subject to random searches and K-9 drug sweeps when he was not participating in treatment activities, and that he was not allowed out of the building except for "10-15" minute increments "a few feet away from the entrance" accompanied by a staff member. And he noted that the entrances were secured by alarms and monitored by cameras "24/7."

3

The treatment director described Douglas Place as a "24-hour facility staffed with nursing and recovery specialists who[] surveil" patients who are there for residential chemical-dependency treatment. She explained that "[p]atients are not permitted to leave the facility at any time unless there is an emergency" or they need medical or dental care. When a patient is in the facility as part of "conditions of release, furlough, commitment, supervised release or intensive supervised release," the patient must obtain permission from a probation or parole office before leaving the facility. If such permission is granted, a staff member accompanies the patient while they are off campus.

The district court denied Crist's request for custody credit. It found that Douglas Place is licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) for the purpose of providing treatment for chemical dependency. The district court noted Crist's description of the conditions at Douglas Place and his subjective impression that he was in custody while he was there, but observed that the treatment director did not corroborate his recollections as to the level of security and confinement. Ultimately, the district court concluded that Crist failed to meet his burden to establish that Douglas Place is the functional equivalent of a jail. Crist appeals.

DECISION

A defendant is entitled to custody credit against their sentence for time spent in custody prior to sentencing. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(B). The defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to such credit. State v. Roy, 928 N.W.2d 341, 344 (Minn. 2019). Awarding custody credit is not a matter within the district court's discretion. Id. Rather, the court makes findings regarding the circumstances of the custody for which

4

credit is requested and applies the law to those circumstances. Id. We review a district court's factual determinations for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Id. "Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred." State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 334 (Minn. 2010); see also In re Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 223 (Minn. 2021) (stating that, on review for clear error, the "appellate court is not to weigh, reweigh, or inherently reweigh the evidence," but must consider the evidence "only as is necessary to determine beyond question that it reasonably tends to support the findings of the factfinder" (quotation omitted)).

In addition to receiving custody credit for time spent in jail or prison, our supreme court held that "fairness and equity demand that [custody] credit be awarded" to defendants placed in residential treatment facilities when "the level of confinement and limitations imposed" at the facility "are the functional equivalent of those imposed at a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility." Asfaha v. State, 665 N.W.2d 523, 528 (Minn. 2003). In determining whether this standard is met, "district courts must look closely at the facts to determine the level of confinement and limitations imposed on a defendant." State v. Razmyslowski, 668 N.W.2d 681, 684 (Minn.App. 2003).

Crist contends that Douglas Place imposed a level of confinement and restrictions upon him that are the functional equivalent of a jail. He argues that the district court committed legal error in concluding otherwise. And he implicitly challenges the...