State v. Ryan

1

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John Michael Ryan, Appellant.

No. A23-0160

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

January 22, 2024

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn.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

Itasca County District Court File No. 31-CR-21-2991

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Jacob Campion, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Matti R. Adam, Itasca County Attorney, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Adam Lozeau, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Ross Judge; and Schmidt, Judge.

SCHMIDT, Judge

In this appeal from the final judgment of conviction for fleeing police in a motor vehicle, criminal damage to property, criminal vehicular operation, and driving while impaired, appellant John Michael Ryan argues that the evidence does not sufficiently support the jury's guilty verdicts, contends that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, and contends that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts. We affirm the final judgment of conviction. But because the district court erred by imposing three sentences based on a single behavioral incident, we reverse and remand for resentencing.

FACTS

At approximately 6:00 a.m. on December 6, 2021, Ryan-driving a white Durango-called police to report that people "were snooping around [his] house" and trucks were "systematically hounding [him]." Ryan told the dispatcher that a corporation has been "illegally testing [him] at the exam complexity lab," and claimed "a bunch of scientists . . . are watching me like a little rat[.]" The dispatcher remained on the phone until Ryan said he was okay.

The dispatcher requested law enforcement to check on Ryan. A police officer located Ryan and followed him to assess his driving. The officer did not stop Ryan because he was not driving erratically and no concerned citizen had requested a welfare check.

At 8:20 a.m. that same morning, an off-duty dispatcher saw a vehicle in his front yard, within eight to ten feet of the house. The off-duty dispatcher noted the vehicle had "come off the street, come through a snow-covered boulevard, a grass boulevard, over the sidewalk and up into [his] yard and there was roughly 18 inches to two feet of snow in that boulevard area." The off-duty dispatcher called the dispatch center and gave the license-plate number of the vehicle, which matched Ryan's vehicle. Ryan drove away before law enforcement could respond.

Two other officers-Sergeant Ryan Gunderson and Officer Samantha Perry- spotted a white SUV. Officer Gunderson checked the license plate and confirmed the vehicle belonged to Ryan. Officer Gunderson briefly spoke to Ryan and decided to take him to be evaluated at a hospital. Ryan became upset, said he did not want to go to the hospital, and stated "he believes the hospital illegally takes his blood from him." Officer Perry moved her squad car to try to prevent Ryan from leaving. As Officer Perry moved her car, Ryan put his vehicle in reverse, backed into the squad car, and then sped away.

Officer Perry activated her vehicle's emergency lights and followed Ryan. Since the road Ryan drove down looped around, Officer Perry stopped at the start of the loop and tried to block the road. As Ryan returned from the loop, he did not appear to slow down. Officer Perry had to move her squad car "out of the way to avoid an accident."

Officer Gunderson then began following Ryan who was "traveling at a high rate of speed." Ryan turned northbound on an unplowed road. Deputy Jayme Williams and Deputy Derek Hanson-driving in separate squad cars with Deputy Hanson 100-150 feet behind Deputy Williams-drove southbound towards Ryan. As Ryan approached, Deputy Williams pulled into a driveway. Deputy Hanson saw Ryan veer in the direction of Deputy Williams's patrol vehicle, "nearly colliding" with it. Ryan then drove his SUV towards Deputy Hanson. Deputy Hanson tried to back up the squad car, but Ryan crashed into the passenger side of Deputy Hanson's vehicle. As a result of the collision, Deputy Hanson suffered a concussion, lower back strain, and bruised ribs.

On the way to the hospital after his arrest, Ryan apologized multiple times for the collision. Law enforcement obtained a warrant for Ryan's blood, which tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.

A crash reconstruction specialist investigated. The airbag control module in Deputy Hanson's squad showed that five seconds before the collision, the squad was in reverse. The control module in Ryan's vehicle showed that five seconds before the collision, the SUV was going 51 miles per hour. When the airbag deployed, Ryan's SUV was traveling approximately 30 miles per hour.

Respondent State of Minnesota charged Ryan, by amended complaint, with eight counts: one count of second-degree assault, two counts of fleeing a peace officer, two counts of first-degree criminal damage to property, two counts of criminal vehicular operation, and one count of fourth-degree driving while impaired. Ryan applied for a public defender, but his application was denied.

On December 22, 2021, the state requested a rule 20 competency evaluation and Ryan, representing himself, did not object. The evaluator concluded Ryan was incompetent to proceed and Ryan asked the court to "affirm" that conclusion. The district court found Ryan incompetent. Following treatment, on July 14, 2022, the district court found Ryan competent to proceed and the prosecution resumed.

On August 10, 2022, Ryan requested to waive his right to an attorney. At a hearing on August 12, Ryan entered not-guilty pleas to all counts and demanded a speedy trial. On September 2, the district court, with Ryan's consent, appointed advisory counsel.

A jury trial was held on October 3-5, 2022. At trial, the jury heard testimony from the officers and deputies involved in the incident as well as the crash reconstruction specialist. The jury also watched footage from police body cameras and squad cars. Ryan testified in his own defense that the collision was not his fault as he believed Deputy Hanson was "playing chicken" with him and was going to "ram" Ryan's SUV.

The jury found Ryan not guilty of second-degree assault and guilty of the remaining seven charges. The district court sentenced Ryan to 12 months and one day in prison for fleeing police (count 3), 15 months for first-degree criminal damage to property (count 5), and 13 months for criminal vehicular operation (count 11), to be served concurrently.

Ryan appeals.

DECISION

On appeal, Ryan raises issues of: (1) insufficient evidence for his first-degree criminal-damage-to-property conviction, (2) a speedy-trial violation due to the 301-day delay between his arrest and the commencement of the trial, (3) legally inconsistent verdicts as to his criminal-damage-to-property and criminal-vehicular-operation convictions, and (4) a sentencing error for imposing three sentences for offenses that occurred within a single behavioral incident. We address each argument in turn.

I. The record evidence sufficiently proved that Ryan intentionally damaged Deputy Hanson's vehicle.

Ryan argues his convictions for first-degree criminal damage to property must be reversed because the evidence did not prove he intentionally damaged Deputy Hanson's vehicle. Ryan contends there is a rational hypothesis that the collision was an accident.

Criminal damage to property requires proof that the defendant "intentionally cause[d] damage to physical property of another." Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 1(2) (2020). "Intentionally" means "the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed by the actor, if successful, will cause that result." Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 9(3) (2020).

When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, "[we] carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted." State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d 257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assume the jury disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict. Id.

The parties agree that the circumstantial-evidence standard applies in this case. We conduct a two-step analysis when evaluating the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013). First, we identify the circumstances proved. Id. In doing so, we "consider only those circumstances that are consistent with the verdict." Id. at 599. We assume the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved the defense's witnesses. Id. Second, we "determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt." Id. (quotations omitted). In doing so, we independently examine "the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances proved." State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 601 (Minn. 2017). "Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than guilt." State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the circumstances proved at trial are: (1) Ryan fled from the police on an unplowed, snow packed road; (2) Ryan had amphetamine and methamphetamine in his system; (3) Ryan drove directly...