State of Minnesota, Respondent,

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-2009

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Roberta Duval Parnell,
Appellant.

Filed December 18, 2017
Appeal dismissed
Klaphake, Judge*

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CR-14-4232

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

Jeremy P. Knutson, Mendota Heights City Attorney, Grannis & Hauge, P.A., Eagan,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Allan H. Caplan, Hillary B. Parsons, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Klaphake,
Judge.
S Y L L A B U S
When a defendant is acquitted of a gross misdemeanor offense and is only found
guilty of a misdemeanor offense and given a petty misdemeanor sentence, the case is not a

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
gross misdemeanor case for purposes of the rule specifying the deadline for a direct appeal,
and any appeal must be filed within the period allotted for misdemeanors.
O P I N I O N
KLAPHAKE, Judge
On appeal from a final judgment, appellant Roberta Duval Parnell argues that she is
entitled to reversal of her conviction or to a new trial because the evidence was insufficient
and reversible errors were made at trial. Because this is not a gross misdemeanor case, but
a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor case , and because the notice of a ppeal was filed 91
days after entry of final judgment , well beyond the 30 -day appeal period, the appeal is
untimely and must be dismissed.
FACTS
Parnell was charged with fourth-degree assault of a peace officer in violation of
Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd . 1 (2012); obstructing legal process or arrest in violation of
Minn. Stat. § 609.50, subd. 1(2) (2012); and disorderly conduct in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 609.72, subd. 1(3) (2012).1
At trial, the jury was properly instructed on the assault and disorde rly conduct
charges. The instructions give n to the jury on the obstruction charge did not include the
“force or violence” language for a gross misdemeanor offense and instructed only on the

1 Fourth-degree assault is a gross misdemeanor offense. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.2231,
subd. 1, .03(2) (2012) (defining gross misdemeanor punishment as imprisonment for not
more than one year or a fine of not more than $3,000). The complaint also refers to the
obstruction charge as a gross misdemeanor, which requires proof that the act of obstruction
“was accompanied by force or violence or the threat thereof.” Minn. Stat. § 609.50,
subd. 2(2). But the complaint omits a citation to this penalty provision.
3
elements for a misdemeanor obstruction charge. See Minn. Stat. § 609.50, subds. 1(2),
2(2). The jury acquitted Parnell of assault and disorderly conduct, but found her guilty of
the obstruction charge . Parnell filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or a new trial,
which the district court denied on the record. The parties agreed to proceed with
sentencing, and the district court entered a conviction on the guilty verdict and sentenced
Parnell to a petty misdemeanor, with no fine or probation.
Parnell electronically filed a notice of appeal with the clerk of the ap pellate courts
on December 20, 2016, 91 days after final judgment was entered on September 20, 2016.
On appeal, the state argues that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely because
it was not filed within 90 days after entry of final judgment, as required by Minn. R. Crim.
P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(a) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within 90 days after entry of
final judgment in felony and gross misdemeanor cases).
During oral arguments before this court, both parties’ counsel were asked whether
the appeal was timely filed. Both parties’ counsel assumed that this is a gross misdemeanor
case su bject to a 90 -day appeal period. And both parties argued whether Parnell had
established “good cause” for a one -day extension of time to file the notice of ap peal. See
Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(g). Additionally, the court inquired as to whether the
case was a gross misdemeanor, a misdemeanor, or a petty misdemeanor case.
ISSUE
Must this appeal be dismissed because it is a misdemeanor or petty misde meanor
case subject to a 30-day appeal period, rather than a gross misdemeanor case subject to a
90-day appeal period?

4
ANALYSIS
The time requirements for the filing of an appeal are jurisdictional . See Ford v.
State, 690 N.W.2d 706, 709 (Minn. 2005); see also State v. Parker, 278 Minn. 53, 55, 153
N.W.2d 264, 266 (1967) (stating that “[i]t is fundamental that the right of appeal is purely
statutory and that the statutory requirements of filing and service are jurisdiction al” and
that “[t]his court has no power to extend the statutory time for appeal.”)
A criminal defendant may appeal as of right from any adverse final judgment, which
occurs when “the district court enters a judgment of conviction and imposes or stays a
sentence.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 28. 02, subd. 2(1). A defendant may not appeal a guilty
verdict until the district court formally enters or records a judgment of conviction. State v.
Hoelzel, 639 N.W.2d 605, 609 (Minn. 2002). Here, the jury was instructed on the elements
of misdemeanor ob structing legal process or arrest , and it found Parnell guilty of
obstruction under those instructions. The district court entered and recorded a conviction
on that verdict and imposed a petty mis demeanor sentence on Parnell, stating, “[ T]his is
going to be a petty misdemeanor sentence. It’s not a gross misdemeanor, it’s not a
misdemeanor, it’s a petty misdemeanor, which is deemed a non-crime.”2
The deadlines for filing a notice of appeal differ, depending on the type of case. “In
felony and gross misdemeanor cases,” a defendant must file a notice of appeal within 90
days after entry of final judgment. Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(a) (emphasis

2 By definition a petty misdemeanor means an offense “which does not constitute a crime
and for which a sentence of a fine of not more than $300 may be imposed.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.02, subd. 4a (2012). The district court did not impose a fine but imposed a surcharge
of $80.
5
added). “In misdemeanor cases,” a defendant has 30 days after final judgme nt to file an
appeal. Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(b) (emphasis added). For appeal purposes,
“petty misdemeanors are treated as misdemeanors .” State v. Tessema , 515 N.W.2d 626,
627 (Minn. App. 1994). And, for good cause, this court may grant up to a 30-day extension
of time to file a notice of appeal. Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(g). But this court
lacks authority to extend the appeal period beyond 30 days. Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.01, subd.
3; see also Ford, 690 N.W.2d at 709.
The rules setting out the appeal periods refer to misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor
“cases,” but do not define that term. To determine the plain and ordinary meaning of an
undefined term , this court turns to dictionary definitions. State v. Thonesavanh , ___
N.W.2d ___, ___, 2017 WL 3880768, at *3 (Minn. Sept. 6, 2017). “Case” is broadly
defined as a “proceeding, action, suit, or controversy at law or in equity.” Black’s Law
Dictionary 258 (10th ed. 2014).
Here, Parnell’s “case” began as a gross misdemeanor because she was charged with
fourth-degree assault of a p eace officer. But the jury acquitted her of the assault charge.
Regardless of what the state may have intended with respect to the obstructing legal process
or arrest charge, the jury did not find that Parnell’s obstruction “was accompanied by force
or violence” and so found her guilty of obstruction based solely on the elements of
misdemeanor obstruction, not gross misdem eanor obstruction. See Minn. Stat. § 609.50,
subd. 2(2); 10A Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 24.26 (2006) (stating that, after a jury finds
the elements of obstruction have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury may then
determine if the defendant also committed one of several aggravating factors from Minn.
6
Stat. § 609.50, subd. 2, that determine the penalty that applies to the obstruction); see also
State v. Ihle, 640 N.W.2d 910, 915 (Minn. 2002) (stating the jury found defendant guilty
of gross misdemeanor obstructing legal process by answering “yes” to special verdict
question indicating the obstruction was accompanied by “force or violence .”)
Additionally, t he district cour t formally entered a conviction on the jury’s verdict but
imposed a sentence within petty misdemeanor limits, making the conviction for a petty
misdemeanor. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 23.02 (“A conviction is deemed a petty misdemeanor
if the sentence imposed is within petty misdemeanor limits.”) . Thus, after conviction and
sentencing, this case is no longer a gross misdemeanor case but, rather, is a misdemeanor
or a petty misdemeanor case, and is subject to the 30-day appeal period. See Hoelzel, 639
N.W.2d at 609.
At oral arguments, Parnell’s counsel claimed that she miscalculated the time period
and requested that this court grant her a good -cause extension of time to file the notice of
appeal. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(g). But, even if we were to find good
cause for an extension of time, this court lacks authority to grant more than a 30 -day
extension because this court “may not alter the time f or filing the notice of appeal unless
permitted by Rule 28.02, subdivision 4(3)(g).” Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.01, subd. 3; see also
State v. Scott , 529 N.W.2d 11, 12 (Minn. App. 1995) (declining to extend the time for
appeal for lack of authority to do so), review denied (Minn. Mar. 14, 1995).

7
D E C I S I O N
Because Parnell failed to file a timely notice of appeal in this misdemeanor or petty
misdemeanor case, the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.