A17-1633

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1632
A17-1633

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Glenn DeJwuan Truesdale,
Appellant

Filed September 24, 2018
Reversed and remanded
Smith, John, Judge*

Hennepin County District Court
File Nos. 27-CR-17-3638, 27-CR-13-19257

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Benjamin J. Butler, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Smith, John,
Judge.

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

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, JOHN, Judge
We reverse the district court’s order denying appellant Glenn DeJwuan Truesdale’s
jail credit request for time spent at Mesabi Academy juvenile treatment facility because it
was a locked facility that was functionally equivalent to a j ail, workhouse or regional
correctional facility, and we remand for a determination of the appropriate jail credit.
FACTS
Appellant was designated as an extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) and pleaded
guilty to multiple counts of aggravated robbery and kidnapping in 2011. The district court
adjudicated appellant delinquent and imposed a stayed adult sentence totaling 178 months.
As a probation condition, Truesdale was placed at Mesabi Academy from April 7, 2011,
until June 29, 2012. In 2017, Truesdale admitted violating probation, and the district court
executed the 178-month adult sentence. Truesdale moved for jail credit for time spent at
Mesabi Academy.
At the hearing on Truesdale’s motion, Kendra Roberg, who visited Mesabi
Academy frequently as pa rt of her employment, testified about the layout and treatment
program at Mesabi Academy. Bedrooms were monitored by motion detectors, and staff
could see all of the bedrooms from a desk area. Except for a conference room used for
attorney/client meeting s, common rooms and areas were monitored by cameras. The
motion detectors and cameras were monitored from a central command center. Mesabi
Academy had eight or nine secure cells that were equipped for the use of mechanical
restraints. The treatment program had four phases; home visits were allowed during phases

3
three and four, and residents were allowed to volunteer in the community during phase
four. Truesdale had five home visits during his placement at Mesabi Academy.
Mesabi Academy was represente d as a juvenile correctional facility in marketing
materials and was licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC). Roberg
testified that residential treatment facilities are generally licensed by the Minnesota
Department of Human Services (DH S). DOC and DHS have different sets of licensing
requirements, and while some facilities are licensed by both departments, Mesabi was only
licensed by the DOC. We note that facilities licensed by DHS in 2012 were allowed to
seek verification for “limited use of mechanical restraints,” but only for transporting a
resident. Minn. R. 2960.0710, subp. 3(D) (2011). DOC -licensed facilities had broader
ability to seek certification for mechanical restraints without that restriction.
Lieutenant Kurt Streed, an employee of the Minnesota Correctional Facility –Red
Wing, testified about conditions in the Red Wing residential juvenile corrections program,
including its physical layout, treatment program, and security measures. Bedrooms were
unlocked and not monitored by cameras, but residents were not allowed to visit each other.
Residents’ movements within and between units were monitored by radio and camera. In
the secure unit, all doors locked electronically, and cell doors were equipped for restraints.
The treatment program had six levels, the last two of which included furloughs.
Streed was also familiar with Mesabi Academy, as he had conducted an audit there
in 2015. Streed testified that confinement conditions at Mesabi Academy and Red Wing
are similar in terms of physical structure and supervision. Distinctions noted by Steed were
that staff accompanied boys at Mesabi Academy whenever they moved about the facility,

4
whereas camera monitoring was used at Red Wing, and Mesabi Academy had fewer
cameras and a smaller incident response team. Also, Red Wing was surrounded by a secure
perimeter fence, and electronic locks were used on gates and doors at Red Wing, whereas
keyed locks were used at Mesabi Academy.
The district court denied Truesdale’s motion for jail credit.
D E C I S I O N
“The decision whether to award credit is a mixed question of fact and law.” State
v. Clarkin, 817 N.W.2d 678, 687 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). We review the district
court’s factual findings for clear error and i ts application of law de novo. Id. The district
court does not have discretion to award jail credit. Id.
A defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in a treatment facility if the
placement’s “level of confinement and limitations imposed are the functional equivalent
of a placement in a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility.” Asfaha v. State, 665
N.W.2d 523, 523-24 (Minn. 2003). “Awards of jail credit are governed by principles of
fairness and equity and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. A defendant has the
burden of establishing that he is entitled to jail credit for a specific period of time.” State
v. Arend, 648 N.W.2d 746, 748 (Minn. App. 2002) (quotation omitted).
In State v. Garcia, the supreme court held that a defendant was entitled to receive
credit against a revoked EJJ sentence for the time he was placed at Red Wing. 683 N.W.2d
294, 301 (Minn. 2004). Truesdale argues that placement at Mesabi Academy is
comparable to confinement at Red Wing and, therefore, he is entitled to credit for the time
he was placed at Mesabi Academy.

5
Although Mesabi Academy was run by a private entity, it was licensed by the DOC
as a correctional facility. Residents were accompanied by staff when they moved about
the facility and were monitored by cameras in all common areas and rooms. Bedrooms
were monitored by motion detectors, and staff could see all of the bedrooms from a desk
area. The motion detectors and cameras were monitored from a central command center.
All doors exiting the residents’ area were secure doors that needed to be unlocked with a
key to permit exit. Mesabi Academy had secure cells that were equipped for the use of
mechanical restraints.
In denying Truesdale’s motion, the district court rel ied in part on the treatment
programs provided at Mesabi Academy. But Red Wing and other correctional facilities
also offer treatment programs. Distinctions between Red Wing and Mesabi Academy, such
as the lack of a secure perimeter fence at Mesabi Academy and doors there being unlocked
with a key rather than electronically, are not significant.
When residents were at the Mesabi Academy facility, they were locked in and their
movements were closely monitored by staff via cameras, motion detectors, and personal
observation. The facility included mechanical restraints : “safety” chains, leg locks and
waist shackles. Secure cells were available as a disciplinary measure, and at the beginning
of his stay, whenever Truesdale was transported outside of Mesab i, he was moved in
shackles and with a cinch on his waist and legs. These are all components of a jail -like
setting. Therefore, we conclude that Truesdale was entitled to jail credit for the time he
spent in residence at the Mesabi Academy facility. We reverse the denial of jail credit and

6
remand to the district court for a determination of the appropriate jail credit and whether
Truesdale is entitled to jail credit for days when he was on furlough and home visits.
Reversed and remanded.