James Leon Nordrum, Jr., petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1888

James Leon Nordrum, Jr., petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed December 16, 2019
Affirmed
Cochran, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-CR-12-1013

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Lauermann, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Jessica J. Fralich, Assistant County Attorney,
Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
Hooten, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
COCHRAN, Judge
Appellant James Leon Nordrum Jr. challenge s the postconviction court’s denial of
his petition to reverse a probation revocation a nd reinstate probation. The district court

2
revoked Nordrum’s probation, in part, based on new criminal charges of fleeing a peace
officer. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nordrum’s
postconviction petition, we affirm.
FACTS
In 2012, appellant James Leon Nordrum J r. pleaded guilty in Saint Louis County
District Court to kidnapping. The district court granted Nordrum’s motion for a downward
dispositional departure and stayed the presumptive 68-month sentence for ten years. One
condition of his probation was to remain law abiding.
In June 2016, Nordrum’s probation o fficer filed a probation-violation report
alleging that Nordrum had failed to report to probation and had missed a number of
appointments with probation. In July 2016, the probati on officer filed an amended
violation report alleging that Nordrum had fa iled to remain law abiding because he was
charged in Carlton County with fleeing a peace officer. See Minn. Stat. § 609.487 (2014).
The Saint Louis County District Court he ld a contested revocation hearing on the
probation violation allegations before the Carlton County fleeing charge was resolved. At
the revocation hearing, Nordrum admitted that he did not maintain contact with probation
but denied that he fled from police. The state called the o fficer involved in the fleeing
incident. The officer testified that he saw Nordrum, whom he knew from prior contacts,
in a parking lot. The officer made eye contact with Nordrum. The officer then checked to
see if there was an active wa rrant for Nordrum’s arrest. Immediately after the officer
discovered that there was an active warrant, Nordrum put a helmet on and drove away on
a motorcycle. The officer followed him for a short time, and then activated his emergency

3
lights and began recording a video of the incident. The video shows that Nordrum looked
back, sped up, and ran through multiple stop signs.1 The officer testified that Nordrum was
driving at least 100 miles per hour. The officer terminated his pursuit for safety reasons.
He testified that he had no doubt that it was Nordrum on the motorcycle. Nordrum did not
testify or present any evidence at the revocation hearing, but argued that it was not him on
the video.
The district court issued written findings that Nordrum ha d fled the officer on the
motorcycle and therefore intentionally and inexcusably violated the condition of probation
that he remain law abiding. At a dispositiona l hearing, the district court found that based
on the multiple probation violations, the need for Nordrum to be confined outweighed the
policies favoring continued prob ation. The district court al so found that Nordrum posed
an ongoing risk to public safety based on the evidence that he fled a police officer. The
district court revoked Nordrum’s probation and executed the 68-month sentence.
In August 2018, Nordrum filed a petition for postconviction relief challenging the
district court’s decision to revoke probation. Nordrum argued that the decision should be
reversed because the state dismissed the Carlton County fleeing charge after his probation
was revoked. Nordrum expressly stated in the petition that he did not request an evidentiary
hearing and submitted the petiti on based on the existing reco rd and other supporting
documents filed with the petiti on. The postconvic tion court denied Nordrum’s petition,

1 Because Nordrum had a helmet on, the video does not show Nordrum’s face.

4
concluding that the fact that the fleeing charge was later dismissed did not undermine the
district court’s finding that Nordrum had failed to remain law abiding.
Nordrum appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his petition.
D E C I S I O N
I. The postconviction court did not ab use its discretion in denying Nordrum’s
petition.

Nordrum argues that the district court erred in denying his postconviction petition.
Appellate courts review the denial of a post conviction petition for an abuse of discretion.
Matakis v. State, 862 N.W.2d 33, 36 (Minn. 2015). “We review legal issues de novo, but
on factual issues our review is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record
to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” Id. (quotation omitted). “We will not
reverse an order unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or
capricious manner, based its ruling on an err oneous view of the la w, or made clearly
erroneous factual findings.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Nordrum’s postconviction petition challenged the district court’s decision to revoke
probation. Before revoking probation, the district court must make findings that the
defendant violated a specific co ndition of probation, that the violation was intentional or
inexcusable, and that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.
State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980). The state is not required to prove a
probation violation beyond a reasonable doubt—only clear a nd convincing evidence (a
lesser burden of proof) is required. See State v. Ehmke , 400 N.W.2d 839, 840 (Minn.

5
App. 1987). The district court has broad disc retion in determining if there is sufficient
evidence to revoke probation. Austin, 295 N.W.2d at 249.
Nordrum argues that the po stconviction court erred in denying his postconviction
petition because, considering the state’s dismissal of the fleeing charge, the record does not
support the district court’s finding that Nordrum failed to remain law abiding. We disagree.
The district court’s findings following the re vocation hearing are supported by clear and
convincing evidence in the record. The police officer’s testimony and the video depicting
the incident are undoubtedly sufficient to support the district court’s finding that Nordrum
fled from the officer and therefore violated th e condition of probation that he remain law
abiding. The mere dismissal of the unde rlying fleeing charge does not undermine the
district court’s findings. Considering the sufficiency of the evid ence introduced at the
revocation hearing, we find no clear error in either the postconviction court’s or the district
court’s findings of fact and no error of law in the postconviction court’s denial of the
petition.
Nordrum further argues that the district court erred in denying the petition without
first conducting an evidentiary hearing, desp ite his express indication that he was not
requesting an evidentiary hearing. A cour t must hold an evid entiary hearing on a
postconviction petition “[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding
conclusively show that the petitioner is en titled to no relief.” Minn. Stat. § 590.04,
subd. 1 (2016). We review a postconviction court’s decision to not hold an evidentiary
hearing for an abuse of discretion. Swaney v. State, 882 N.W.2d 207, 214 (Minn. 2016).
Assuming that Nordrum did not waive an evidentiary hearing by expressly requesting that

6
no evidentiary hearing be held, we conclude that the postconviction court did not abuse its
discretion in not holding an evidentiary hearing. The only evidence Nordrum presented in
support of his petition was an affidavit that denied that he was the person who fled on the
motorcycle and a copy of the state’s dismissal of the Carlton County matter. As discussed
above, this evidence does no t undermine the district court’s findings regarding the
probation revocation. Thus, the petition and the record conclusively showed that Nordrum
was not entitled to relief and no evidentiary hearing was required.
Finally, Nordrum argues that the postconviction court erred in denying his petition
because the record does not support the district court’ s finding that the need for
confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation. We again disagree. In determining
whether the need for confinem ent outweighs the policies favor ing probation, the district
court should consider whether “confinement is necessary to protect the public from further
criminal activity by the offe nder,” whether “the offender is in need of correctional
treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined,” or whether “it would
unduly depreciate the seriousness of the vi olation if probation were not revoked.”
State v. Modtland, 695 N.W.2d 602, 607 (Minn. 2005) (quotations omitted). The district
court found that the need for confinement outweighed th e policies favor ing probation
because Nordrum’s multiple violations demonstrated that he was not amenable to probation
and because the fleeing incident demonstrated that he was an ongoing risk to public safety.
Nordrum’s argument on this po int assumes that the postconviction court erred in not
reversing its finding that Nordrum failed to remain law abiding, which we reject. Instead,
we conclude that the district court’s findings are well-supported by the evidence introduced

7
at the probation revocation hearing and therefore that the postconviction court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the petition over this argument.
II. We do not address Nordrum’s cl aims of newly discovered evidence.
In his reply brief, Nordrum raises for th e first time a claim of newly discovered
evidence—a disclosure by the state that the officer who testified at the revocation hearing
had been previously disciplined by the police department. Nordrum moved this court for
a stay of appeal for further proceedings based on the newly discovered evidence. We
denied the motion, noting, “[t]he arguments ra ised in appellant’s supplemental brief and
reply brief concerning the state’s disclosure of the disciplinary records of the testifying
police officer are based upon matters not part of the record on appeal and are not properly
before this court. Accordingly, this c ourt will not address these arguments in the
disposition of this appeal.” We reiterate here that the issue is not properly before this court
and do not address the argument.
III. Nordrum’s pro se claims are not properly before this court.
Nordrum also submitted a supplemental pr o se brief that: challenges his kidnapping
conviction from 2012; alleges ineffective assistance of co unsel of the attorneys who
represented him at his plea hearing, revoca tion hearing, and in the postconviction matter;
and asserts purportedly newly discovered evid ence establishing an alibi for the fleeing
incident. But a postconviction petitioner may not raise issues for the first time on appeal.
Taylor v. State, 910 N.W.2d 35, 38 (Minn. 2018). No ne of Nordrum’s pro se claims are
properly before this court because, among other reasons, Nordrum did not raise any of them

8
in his postconviction petition. Consequently, we do not addr ess the arguments contained
in Nordrum’s pro se supplemental brief.
Affirmed.