A18-0312 A18-0313

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0311
A18-0312
A18-0313

City of Golden Valley, State of Minnesota,
Appellant (A18-0311),

Metropolitan Airports Commission, State of Minnesota,
Appellants (A18-0312),

City of Richfield, State of Minnesota,
Appellant (A18-0313),

vs.

J. L. H.,
Respondent.

Filed November 13, 2018
Reversed and remanded
Connolly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File Nos. 27-CR-05-058615; 27-CR-04-027615; 27-CR-07-002345

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

Francis J. Rondoni, Mark J. Schneider, Gary K. Luloff, Chestnut Cambronne PA,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant City of Golden Valley)

Christopher P. Renz, Jennifer J. Crancer, Nathan J. Knoernschild, Chestnut Cambronne
PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Metropolitan Airports Commission)

Martin J. Costello, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant for City of Richfield)

2
James H. Gempeler, Northstar Criminal Defense, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent
J.L.H.)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court’s decision to grant respondent’s petition for
expungement, arguing that the district court (1) erred in determining that her 2004 and
2005 convictions were eligible for expungement, (2) improperly shifted the burden of proof
to appellants, (3) abused its discretion in weighing the expungement factors, and (4) made
factual findings not supported by the evidence presented . Because the district court
improperly shifted the burden of proof to appellants, we reverse and remand.
FACTS
On April 24, 2004, respondent J.L.H. was arrested for driving while impaired (DWI)
in Richfield. Respondent pleaded guilty to and was convicted of a misdemeanor fourth -
degree DWI. The district court sentenced respondent to probation for two years . On
June 15, 2006, she was discharged from probation on the 2004 conviction.
On July 17, 2005, respondent was arrested for DWI in Golden Valley. She pleaded
guilty to and was convicted of gross misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle with an
alcohol concentration of 0.10 within two hours and sentenced to probation for three years.
On April 23, 2010, she was discharged from probation on the 2005 conviction.

3
On January 11, 2007, respondent was arrested f or DWI near the Minneapolis -
St. Paul International Airport. Respondent pleaded guilty to and was convicted of gross
misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 within two
hours of driving. The district court sentenced her to probation for four years. On or prior
to February 22, 2012, she was discharged from probation on the 2007 conviction.
On August 17, 2017, respondent filed a petition for expungement of the 2004, 2005,
and 2007 DWI convictions pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3) -(4) (2016).
Appellants, the Cities of G olden Valley and Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, opposed respondent’s petition for expungement of the DWI convictions. The
district court granted respondent’s petition for expungement of all three convictions. This
appeal follows. Appellants argue that the district court erred in interpreting the statute and
in misallocating the burden of proof to them.
D E C I S I O N
I.
We review the district court’s interpretation of the expungement statute de novo as
a question of law. State v. C.W.N., 906 N.W.2d 549, 551 (Minn. App. 2018). The relevant
portion of the expungement statute states:
(a) A petition may be filed under section 609A.03 to
seal all records . . . if:
. . . .
(3) the petitioner was convicted of or received a stayed
sentence for a petty misdemeanor or misdemeanor and has not
been convicted of a new crime for at least two years since
discharge of the sentence for the crime; [or]
(4) the petitioner was convicted of or received a stayed
sentence for a gross misdemeanor and has not been convicted

4
of a new crime for at least four years since discharge of the
sentence for the crime[.]

Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3)-(4) (emphasis added).
While appellants are correct that there are at least two plausible interpretations of
the requisite waiting period under Minn. Sta t. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3) -(4), we recently
concluded that the two- and four-year conviction-free periods must occur between the date
of discharge of the sentence for the crime and the date of filing an expungeme nt petition.
C.W.N., 906 N.W.2d at 553.
In reviewing respondent’s 2004 and 2005 convictions using C.W.N.’s interpretation,
we conclude that they are eligible for expungement. Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3)-
(4); 906 N.W.2d at 553. Respondent was discharged from the misdemeanor 2004
conviction on June 15, 2006 . Respondent was discharged from the gross misdemeanor
2005 conviction on April 23, 2010. Respondent filed a petition for expungement of the
convictions on August 17, 2017. As more than two and four years have passed between
the dates of discharges of the sentence s and the date of filing the expungement petition,
respondent’s 2004 and 2005 convictions are eligible for expungement under Minn. Stat.
§ 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3)-(4). See C.W.N., 906 N.W.2d at 553.
II.
We review whether the district court erroneously shifted the statutory burden of
proof to appellants de novo. Id. at 551.

5
There are the two possible standards for applying the burden of proof under the
expungement chapter. See Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(a) (2016) (providing the general
standard and placing the burden on petitioner).
[E]xpungement of a criminal record is an extraordinary
remedy to be granted only upon clear and convincing evidence
that it would yield a benef it to the petitioner commensurate
with the disadvantages to the public and public safety of:
(1) sealing the record; and
(2) burdening the court and public authorities to issue,
enforce, and monitor an expungement order.

Id. This standard applies if the petitioner seeks to seal a criminal record pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3)-(5) (2016), when the proceedings were not resolved in favor
of the petitioner.
In contrast, section 609A.03, subdivision 5(b) , shifts the burden to the “agency or
jurisdiction whose records would be affected” if the petitioner seeks to seal a criminal
record pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1)-(2) (2016). Minn. Stat. § 609A.03,
subd. 5(b) (2016); State v. R.H.B. , 821 N.W.2d 817, 821 (Minn. 2012) (noti ng that the
burden of persuasion shifts to the opposing party once a petitioner meets the legal threshold
in Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3). A petitioner may seek to seal a criminal record pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1) -(2) if “all pend ing actions or proceedings were
resolved in favor of the petitioner” or “petitioner has successfully completed the terms of
a diversion program or stay of adjudication and has not been charged with a new crime for
at least one year since completion . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(1)-(2).
Here, the general standard applies because respondent sought relief under Minn.
Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(a)(3)-(4). The proceedings were not resolved in her favor. The

6
parties agree that respondent bore the burden of proof in support of her expungement
petition. The parties also agree that the district court’s order granting respondent’s petition
mistakenly indicated that appellants, rather than respondent, bore the burden of proof. The
district court misstated how to apply the burden of proof: “The law enforcement agencies
or jurisdictions whose records would be affected have not established by clear and
convincing evidence that the interests of the public and public safety outweigh the
disadvantages to the [respondent] of not sealing the record per Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd.
5(b).” Because it was respondent, rather than the “agencies or jurisdictions,” who needed
to establish by clear and convincing evidence that sealing the record would yield a benefit
to her commensurate with the disadvantages to the public and public safety, this is a clearly
erroneous application of the statutory burden of proof. Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(a).
Respondent argues that, even if the district court’s order appears to incorrectly place
the burden of proof on appellants, “the entirety of the record” establishes that the district
court applied the correct burden of proof in its determination. Respondent later highlights
the number of times each party correctly stated the proper burden during briefs and oral
arguments and “that the district court judge was actively engaged.” This argument fails.
The best place for the appellate court to review the factual findings, analysis, and legal
conclusions of the district court is the order of the district court that contains its factual
findings, analysis, and legal conclusions.
Next, respondent argues that district court cited and detailed the proper burden of
proof when it stated:

7
In cases which meet the cri teria set forth in Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd.
3(a)(3)-(5), expungement of a criminal record is an extraordinary remedy to
be granted only upon clear and convincing evidence that it would yield a
benefit to the petitioner commensurate with the disadvantag es to the public
and public safety of (1) sealing the record; and (2) burdening the court and
public authorities to issue, enforce, and monitor an expungement order[.]

While this restatement of Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(a), shows that the district co urt
was aware of the correct standard of proof, it does not address how to apply that burden of
proof, and the district court misapplied that burden elsewhere in the order.
Finally, respondent argues that the district court weighed the relevant factors in a
manner consistent with the correct burden of proof, despite its misstatement . But upon
review, the district court did not use language clearly showing it placed the burden of
persuasion on respondent in weighing the relevant factors. The district court found that
“the agencies have presented no concerns that are specific to [respondent’s] case that would
give the [c]ourt pause in its determination of whether hardship has outweighed the interests
of the public.” This concerns us because it appears to re ly on the reasoning of State v.
R.H.B., 821 N.W.2d at 823.
R.H.B. concluded that the state failed to overcome the presumption of expungement
under Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(b) , because it did not present evidence showing a
“unique or particularized ha rm to the public. ” 821 N.W.2d at 822 -23 (noting that the
statements provided by the state were “unremarkable and generalized, and could be
submitted in nearly every expungement case”). This is distinguishable from respondent’s
case, which places the burden on her under Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(a). The district

8
court’s language about the agencies’ failure to present specific concerns further supports
the conclusion that it erroneously shifted the burden of proof to appellants.
Accordingly, we revers e and remand for further findings and legal analysis
consistent with this opinion. Because we reverse and remand the order granting appellant’s
petition for erroneously shifting the burden of proof, we do not address appellant’s
alternative argument that the district court erred in its review of the evidence and
application of the requisite factors under Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 5(c) (2016).
Reversed and remanded.