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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-2070

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Twin Cities Care Services,
Defendant,

Abdulkarim Dahir,
Appellant.

Filed July 30, 2018
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Reilly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-15-10323

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Adam Kohnstamm, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Abdulkarim Dahir, Blaine, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bjorkman,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Appellant Abdulkarim Dahir challenges the di strict court’s denial of his motion to
correct clerical errors in court records. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

2
FACTS
Appellant is the owner of Twin Cities Care Services (TCCS), a personal-care
provider that bills the Minnesota Departme nt of Human Services (DHS) for services
provided to eligible Medicaid recipients. In April 2015, the state charged TCCS with six
counts of theft by false representation, a lleging that the company defrauded the Medicaid
program by billing for qualified professional services without the required documentation.
Following a court trial, the district court found TCCS guilty of four felony counts of theft
of public funds by false representation. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. See
Minnesota v. Twin Cities Care Servs ., No. A17-0843, 2018 WL 2769156 (Minn. App.
June 11, 2018).
The original charging docum ent in the TCCS case incl uded appellant’s name and
date of birth in the case caption. The stat e later filed an amended complaint removing
appellant’s name and birth date from the case caption. Appellant filed a motion to strike
his name from the body of the complaint itself, which the district court denied. Appellant
then moved to correct the court records and remove his name and personal information
from the TCCS complaint caption and from the court file on th e basis that the references
were the result of clerical errors. The distri ct court denied the motion, determining that
“[t]he fact that [appellant] was the owner of [TCCS] was factually accurate and relevant to
the charges contained in the Complaint.” This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
We review a district court’s ruling on a mo tion to correct clerical errors de novo.
Brazinsky v. Brazinsky, 610 N.W.2d 707, 710 (Minn. App. 2000). A “clerical error” is a

3
mistake that “ordinarily is apparent upon the face of th e record and capable of being
corrected by reference to the re cord only. It is usually a mi stake in the clerical work of
transcribing the particular record. It is usually one of form.” Wilson v. City of Fergus
Falls, 181 Minn. 329, 332, 232 N.W. 322, 323 (1930). “Clerical mistakes . . . in the record
arising from oversight or omission may be corre cted by the court at any time.” Minn. R.
Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 10. Appellant bears the burden of showing both error and prejudice
resulting from the error. Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr. Inc ., 306 Minn. 352, 356,
237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (1975).
This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether records from the TCCS case referring
to appellant as a criminal defendant constitu te clerical errors, and (2) whether other
references to appellant’s association with TCCS should be removed.
With respect to the first issu e, the state agrees that cour t records in the TCCS case
referring to appellant as a defendant are clerical errors because the record establishes that
appellant was not a party to th e case. After the original court filing, the state filed an
amended complaint removing appellant’s name and birth date from the case caption. To
the extent that any such references remain, we reverse that portion of the district court’s
order denying appellant’s motion to remove his name as a de fendant in the TCCS case.
We remand to the district court with instructions to remove appellant’s name and birth date
from the court records, only insofar as thos e records identify appellant as a criminal
defendant in the TCCS case.
With respect to the second issue, appellant argues th at he is entitled to an order
“[r]emov[ing] any association of TCCS’s conviction with Dahi r’s name.” We disagree.

4
The record establishes that appellant is th e owner of TCCS. As such, court records
associating appellant with his company are not clerical errors. A clerical error is one which
“cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.”
Gould v. Johnson, 379 N.W.2d 643, 646 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Mar. 14,
1986). In its order denying appellant’s motion, the district court determined that
[Appellant] was the owner of [TCCS], and the state had to
prove that the criminal acts were committed by an agent of the
corporation and authorized, tolera ted, or ratified by corporate
management. The fact that [appellant] was the owner of
[TCCS] was factually accurate and relevant to the charges
contained in the complaint.
Appellant does not challenge the district court’s decision on the ground that this
finding was a clerical error as opposed to the exercise of the court’s judicial consideration
or discretion. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the distri ct court’s denial of the request to
remove any association between appellant and his company.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.