State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0932

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Reynaldo NMN Espino,
Appellant.

Filed January 16, 2018
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Aitkin County District Court
File No. 01-CR-16-176

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

James P. Ratz, Aitkin Coun ty Attorney, Nathan Benusa, Assistant County Attorney,
Aitkin, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rachel F. Bond, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presid ing Judge; Worke, Judge; and Rodenberg,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant Reynaldo Espino challenges the $500 fine included in his sentence after
he was convicted of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance in violation of Minn.

2
Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1) (2014). He argues that the district court should have imposed
the minimum fine of $50, because he qualifie d for public-defender services. Because the
sentence was within the district court’s discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
On February 26, 2016, law enforcement responded to a report regarding an assault
and robbery at a hotel. Officers made contact with appellant as someone involved in the
incident. The officers spoke w ith him, frisked him, and secu red appellant in a squad car.
Appellant was asked to empty his pockets. Wh en appellant did so, one of the things he
removed from his pockets was a bottle of prescription methadone not prescribed to him. A
second bottle of methadone was located by law enforcement following a search of the hotel
room involved in the incident. Appellant was charged with fifth-degree possession of a
controlled substance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(a)(1).
A public defender was appo inted to represent appella nt because appellant was
unable to pay for a private attorney. Appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense. There
was no plea agreement. Appellant admitted to possessing the methadone. He testified that
he took it away from his significant other be cause she was using alcohol and abusing the
methadone, for which she had a prescription. At sentenci ng, defense counsel argued for
the imposition of the statutory minimum fine of $50 because appellant qualified for a public
defender and, because he had been in jail, he had lost his housing, his personal belongings,
his car, and his job. The district court sent enced appellant to 24 m onths in prison, but
stayed the execution of the sentence and placed appellant on probation for five years. The
district court also ordered appellant to pay a fine of $500 along with other applicable

3
charges that increased his total financial obli gation to $587. The district court further
ordered that appellant had the option of satisfying the $500 fine through community service
and could also pay on a payment plan. Appellant’s sentence was a downward dispositional
departure from the presumptive guidelines senten ce of 21 months in prison. The district
court found the departure appropriate becaus e appellant was amenable to probation and
chemically dependent.
This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant argues that the district court e rred by failing, without explanation, to
impose the minimum fine of $50 available for defendants who qualify for the services of a
public defender, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.101, subd. 5(b) (2014).
While the legislature has the power “to fi x the limits of punishment for criminal
acts[,]” “the imposition of [a] sentence within the limits set by the legislature is purely a
judicial function.” State v. Lambert, 392 N.W.2d 242, 243 (Minn. 1986). “The [district]
court exercises its discretion when it imposes a sentence.” State v. Martinson, 460 N.W.2d
342, 343 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Oct. 25, 1990). We review a sentence
imposed by the district court for abuse of this discretion. State v. Franklin, 604 N.W.2d
79, 82 (Minn. 2000). “The district court has broad discretion to impose significantly lower
fines if it makes specific findings that immedi ate payment of the fine would create undue
hardship for the convicted person.” State v. Rewitzer, 617 N.W.2d 407, 412 (Minn. 2000).
But, “a sentencing judge need not specifically find that a defendant has the ability to pay a

4
fine before imposing the fine as part of the defendant’s sentence.” Perkins v. State, 559
N.W.2d 678, 693 (Minn. 1997).
The minimum fines for controlled substance offenses may not be less than 30% of
the maximum fine. Minn. Stat. § 609.101, subd. 3(a) (2014). The maximum fine for
appellant’s fifth-degree controlled substance conviction is $10,000. Minn. Stat. § 152.025,
subd. 1(a) (2014). The 30% minimum would th erefore be $3,000. However, Minn. Stat.
§ 609.101, subd. 5(b), also provides that
[i]f the defendant qualifies for the services of a public defender
or the court finds on the record that the convicted person is
indigent or that immediate pa yment of the fine would create
undue hardship for th e convicted person . . . , the court may
reduce the amount of the minimum fine to not less than $50.

And, “the court may permit the defendant to perform community work service in lieu of a
fine. . . . The court also may authorize payment of the fine in installments.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.101, subd. 5(b)-(c) (2014). Appellant points to no statutory requirement that a
district court must reduce an indigent defendan t’s fine to $50. The statutory language is
permissive.
Here, appellant’s defense counsel argued at his sentencing hearing that the district
court should impose a minimum fine because appellant had no income or assets from which
to pay a fine, due to his incarceration. Appellant qualified for a public defender, which
would have permitted the distri ct court to reduce his fine to a minimum amount of $50
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.101, subd. 5(b). The district court did not address appellant’s
minimum-fine argument on the record during sentencing and imposed a $500 fine, which
appellant now argues was error. It did, ho wever, impose a fine of less than 30% of the

5
statutory maximum, based apparently on appella nt’s indigence. The district court also
provided in its sentence that appellant co uld satisfy his $500 fine through community
service work and informed appe llant about the availability of a payment plan. As stated
above, the district court “need not specifically find that a defendant has the ability to pay a
fine before imposing the fine.” Perkins, 559 N.W.2d at 693. The district court was under
no obligation to make additional findings regarding appellant’s ability to pay. The district
court acted well within its discretion when it imposed a fine of $500 as part of appellant’s
sentence.
Affirmed.