Listen to this article

Civil

 

Landlord & Tenant

Eviction Expungement

In 2023, the Legislature amended Minnesota’s eviction expungement statute to provide that a “court shall order expungement of an eviction case … upon motion of the defendant, if the case is settled and the defendant fulfills the terms of the settlement.” Respondent challenged the constitutionality of this statutory provision by appealing the expungement of a former tenant’s eviction court file. The court of appeals concluded that the eviction settlement expungement provision is facially unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers. The former tenant, appellant, petitioned for review. Standing, however, is a threshold issue.

The Supreme Court held that, to have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, a party must show that the statute has or is about to disadvantage the party’s legal interest or right. Here, respondent failed to show that the eviction settlement expungement provision, Minn. Stat. § 484.014, subd. 3(a)(7), has or is about to disadvantage respondent’s legal interest or right. Respondent therefore lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the eviction settlement expungement provision. Vacated.

A24-1380 Sela Invs., Ltd v. J.H. (Court of Appeals)

 

 

Criminal

 

Plea Withdrawal

Adequate Factual Basis

The state charged defendant with two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. After the district court accepted his Norgaard plea to fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, defendant appealed to the court of appeals, arguing that the plea was constitutionally invalid because it was not supported by a strong factual basis. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for defendant to withdraw the plea, determining that the State had failed to provide an adequate factual basis from which the district court could have concluded that there was a strong probability that defendant would be found guilty of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct at trial. The State petitioned for further review, arguing that the court of appeals erred by requiring defendant’s Norgaard plea to meet the “strong factual basis” standard required for a valid Alford plea and concluding that defendant’s plea did not meet that standard.

The Supreme Court held that (1) to satisfy the accuracy requirement for a valid guilty plea, a Norgaard plea, like an Alford plea, requires a strong factual basis sufficient to allow a district court to independently conclude that there is a strong probability that a defendant is guilty of the charge to which they are pleading guilty; and (2) because the State did not describe the evidence it would present at trial to convict defendant of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct, defendant’s Norgaard plea was not supported by a strong factual basis from which a district court could independently conclude that there was a strong probability that respondent was guilty of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. Affirmed.

A24-0097 State v. Steichen (Court of Appeals)

 

 

 

Orders

 

Attorney Discipline

Disability Inactive

Charles Cade is transferred to disability inactive status

A26-0793 In re Cade

 

 

Attorney Discipline

Disability Inactive

Robert A. Hill was transferred to disability inactive status.

A26-0824 In re Hill