State v. Seeman

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Paul Scott Seeman, Appellant.

A16-1163

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

July 17, 2017

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

Affirmed

Jesson, Judge

Rice County District Court

File No. 66-CR-15-1621

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

John Fossum, Rice County Attorney, Terence Swihart, Assistant County Attorney, Faribault, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Smith, John, Judge.^*

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

JESSON, Judge

Convicted of rustling and felony theft after he sold livestock, which were originally on his land with permission, appellant Paul Scott Seeman challenges his conviction, arguing that his conduct—though perhaps a civil theft—did not constitute a crime. He further asserts that he had a "claim of right" to the livestock and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

FACTS

This case involves three neighbors and an assortment of horses, cows, sheep, pigs, turkeys, ducks, and chickens. R.K. owned the animals, but he did not own enough land to sustain them. Seeman owned 25 acres of property, but no livestock. In September 2014, Seeman agreed that R.K. could move his horses and sheep to Seeman's farm on a temporary basis, until R.K. was able to purchase his own property or find another place for the animals. Under the oral agreement, R.K. was responsible for care of the animals, including providing gated pens for them. Over the next month or so, R.K. moved the rest of his animals to Seeman's property. At the time he moved his animals to Seeman's farm, R.K. was under investigation by the Humane Society for animal neglect. While Seeman did not initially charge R.K. rent, after R.K. moved all his animals, Seeman began charging him $500 per month.

Seeman directed R.K. to house his animals down the hill from his house, where a creek ran through Seeman's farm, as well as a farm belonging to a second neighbor, D.T. In early spring 2015, Seeman began to notice that the animals were escaping from theirpens. Seeman found pigs and sheep foraging near his house, as well as on neighboring properties. He alerted D.T. to this, and D.T., upon investigation, found pens on his property, as well as dead animals, loose livestock, and piles of manure.¹ On April 1, Seeman demanded that R.K. (who had never paid the $500 monthly charges) remove the livestock by May 1. R.K. made no attempt to do so. After the May 1 deadline passed, Seeman blocked R.K. from entering his farm. Shortly thereafter, he contacted a livestock hauler to remove the animals from his and D.T.'s properties. Without notice to R.K. or his permission, Seeman sold the livestock at auction for a value of $6,883.33 and deposited the proceeds of the sale into his bank account. Seeman admitted that he did not intend to reimburse R.K. for the sale, claiming that the animals had caused in excess of $30,000 in property damage.

Seeman was charged with felony livestock theft. See Minn. Stat. § 609.551, subd. 1(a) (2014). After a two-day jury trial, Seeman was found guilty. In a thorough and lengthy order, the district court denied Seeman's motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. At sentencing, the district court stayed imposition of a one-year sentence, placed Seeman on three years' probation, and ordered him to serve one day in jail. This appeal follows.

DECISION

I. The evidence was sufficient to sustain Seeman's conviction of felony livestock theft.

Seeman acknowledges that by selling R.K.'s animals, instead of seizing and impounding them, he may have "unknowingly chose[n] the wrong course of action" but argues that his actions in removing animals trespassing on his property, without more, are not criminal and to make them so would result in an absurd result. In essence, he argues that the uncontroverted evidence is not sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we are limited to considering whether the legitimate inferences drawn from the evidence would permit the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Pratt, 813 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Minn. 2012). In reaching this determination, our review is limited to a close analysis of the record, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).

In order to obtain a conviction under the livestock-theft statute, the state must prove that a person "intentionally and without claim of right shoots, kills, takes, uses, transfers, conceals or retains possession of live cattle, swine or sheep or the carcasses thereof belonging to another without the other's consent and with the intent to permanently deprivethe owner." Minn. Stat. § 609.551, subd. 1. To obtain a felony conviction, as in this case, the state must also prove that the value of the livestock exceeded $2,500. Id., subd. 1(a).

The record is undisputed. Seeman admitted to selling the livestock at auction. The total value of the livestock was $7,763.29. Seeman admitted to keeping the proceeds of the sale, which amounted to $6,883.33 after fees were assessed. He testified that he did not intend to reimburse R.K.

Seeman argues that his conduct does not constitute a crime because the legislature did not intend a landowner to endure trespassing livestock. But Seeman does not dispute the constitutionality of the statute or the statute's plain proscription. Instead, he argues that sustaining his conviction would reach an absurd result. We are not persuaded.

The plain language of the statute prohibited Seeman from intentionally selling the livestock without a claim of right and with the intent to permanently deprive the owner. Minn. Stat. § 609.551, subd. 1. It is the exclusive province of the Minnesota Legislature to define by statute what acts constitute a crime. See State v. Taylor, 590 N.W.2d 155, 157 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. May 18, 1999). Here, Seeman was not convicted because of his act of removing the animals from his property. He was convicted because he sold the livestock without a valid claim of right and kept the proceeds of the sale. Seeman's conduct falls within the statute's plain proscription.

And Seeman's conviction does not reach an absurd result. Cf. State v. Schouweiler, 887 N.W.2d 22, 26 (Minn. 2016) (explaining that, in construing a statute, Minnesota courts presume that the legislature does not intend absurd results). The legislature does not require landowners to endure trespassing livestock; a landowner may impound trespassinglivestock. See Minn. Stat. §§ 561.07 (2014), 346.08 (2014). The landowner also may dispose of the livestock—but only after giving notice to the owner and receiving an appraisal of the property damage. See Minn. Stat. § 346.09, subd. 1 (2014). Although this civil remedy was available to Seeman, he did not avail himself of it.

In summary, because Seeman's undisputed act of selling the animals falls within the purview of the statute and application of it does not lead to an absurd result, given the availability of impounding and selling trespassing animals under a statutory provision, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to sustain Seeman's conviction of felony livestock theft.

II. Seeman's pro se claims are without merit.

In his pro se brief Seeman raises two issues properly before this court: whether he had a "claim of right" and whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel.² We address each issue in turn.

To sustain a conviction under the livestock theft statute, the state was required to prove that Seeman was without claim of right when he sold the animals. Minn. Stat. § 609.551, subd. 1. Seeman contends that he had a claim of right for three reasons: (1) hehad a valid feeder's lien for the animals, (2) he had permission from his neighbor, D.T., to remove the animals; and (3) R.K. abandoned the animals. As a result, he argues that the district court erred by denying his posttrial motion for a judgment of acquittal.

We review the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo and in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. DeLaCruz, 884 N.W.2d 878, 890 (Minn. App. 2016) (stating that this court essentially reviews such a denial for sufficiency of the evidence). Based on this review, we conclude that the district court correctly denied Seeman's posttrial motion for acquittal based on his alleged claim of right.

Seeman did not have a valid feeder's lien, see Minnesota Statute section 514.966, subdivision 4(a) (2014), because he did not care for animals in his routine trade or business. Seeman testified at trial, "We're not farmers. We're not—we rent out our crop land. I don't raise—I don't want to raise animals. If I...