State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1908

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky,
Appellant.

Filed November 12, 2019
Affirmed
Hooten, Judge

Stearns County District Court
File Nos. 73-CR-18-78, 73-CR-18-4550, 73-CR-18-5451

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

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Rebecca A. Becker, Assistant County
Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Kirk,
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
HOOTEN, Judge
Appellant argues that his sentence was illegally modified after adjudication when
the district court aggregated two consecutive sentences for Domestic Abuse No Contact
Order (DANCO) violations into a single sentence in violation of Minn. Sent. Guidelines
II.F (2016). Because any error in the district court’s combining the sentences into a single
sentence was harmless and did not affect appellant’s substantial rights, we affirm.
FACTS
On March 9, 2018, the district court issued a pretrial DANCO that prohibited
appellant Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky from having any contact with his mother (“first
DANCO”). Just under three months later, law enforcement arrested Schaefer-Bonovsky
and the state charged him with, among other charges, three counts of felony domestic
assault after an altercation with his girlfr iend in a Walmart parking lot. The district court
issued another DANCO that prohibited Schaefer-Bonovsky from having any contact with
his girlfriend (“second DANCO”).
While in jail, Schaefer-Bonovsky telephoned his girlfriend five times and spoke to
his mother once in violation of the DANCOs. Based on these phone calls, the state charged
Schaefer-Bonovsky with six counts of violating a DANCO under Minn. Stat.
§ 629.75, subd. 2(d)(1) (2016). Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years
imprisonment, up to a $10,000 fine , or both. Schaefer-Bonovsky pleaded guilty to two
counts of violating a DANCO as well as other unrelated offenses.

3
On August 24, 2018, t he district court held a senten cing hearing and sentenced
Schaefer-Bonovsky to 33 months in prison for the first DANCO violation and 12 months
and one day in prison for the second DANCO violation, to be served consecutively. Felony
DANCO violations are offenses eligible for permissive consecutive sentences under Minn.
Sent. Guidelines II.F.2.a(1)(ii). Immediately after the district court orally executed the
second DANCO sentence, the state requested that the district court aggregate the two
sentences into a single 45-month sentence pursuant to Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F. Though
the state was correct that the guidelines require aggregation of sentences executed on the
same day, the guidelines direct the commissioner of corrections —and not the district
court—to aggregate the sentences. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F. Nevertheless, the district
court complied with the state’s request. Later that day, the district court signed an order
listing the two sentences and stating that the aggregated sentence was 45 months in prison.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
On appeal, Schaefer-Bonovsky argues that his sentence was illegally modified when
the district court aggregated the two consecutive sentences into a single sentence after
adjudication because only the commissioner of corrections is authorized to aggregate
consecutive sentences. Whether a statute or a provision of the sentencing guidelines has
been properly construed is a question of law we review de novo. State v. Zeimet , 696
N.W.2d 791, 793 (Minn. 2005).
Even when an error oc curs, if the error does not affect a defendant’s substantial
rights, it must be disregarded as harmless. Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.01; see also State v. Hill,

4
801 N.W.2d 646, 658 (Minn. 2011) (providing a court may disregard an error where it did
not affect the substantial rights of a defendant and did not meaningfully affect the verdict).
To determine if an error is harmless, an appellate court must decide if there is a reasonable
possibility that the error substantially influenced the decision maker. State v. Taylor, 869
N.W.2d 1, 14 (Minn. 2015). If there is no reasonable possibility, the error is harmless. Id.
When an appellate court finds a procedural error to be harmless, the court should end its
inquiry there. State v. Bell, 719 N.W.2d 635, 642 (Minn. 2006).
In a single proceeding, the district court sentenced Schaefer-Bonovsky to 33 months
for the first DANCO violation and 12 months and one day for the second DANCO
violation, with the sentences to be served consecutively. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines
provide, “[i]f two or more sentences are consecutively executed at the same time and by
the same court, the Commissioner of Corrections must aggregate the sentence duratio ns
into a single fixed sentence .” Minn. Sent. Gui delines II.F. This provision states that it is
the role of the commissioner of corrections, not the district court, to aggregate consecutive
sentences executed at the same time. At the request of the state immediately after the
district court sentenced S chaefer-Bonovsky, the district court pronounced that the
sentences were aggregated so that Schaefer-Bonovsky would serve a cumulative
45-month-and-one-day sentence.
While Schaefer -Bonovsky does not dispute that his aggregated sentence as
pronounced by the district court is correct, he argues that the district court procedurally
erred by aggregating his sentence because the guidelines direct only the commissioner of
corrections to perform the aggregation. Even if the district court was not authorized to

5
perform the aggregation at sentencing, the procedural error was harmless as it does not
affect the duration or form of Schaefer-Bonovsky’s sentence.
We hold this alleged procedural error harmless because the error did not affect
Schaefer-Bonovsky’s substantive rights, it must be disregarded under Minn. R. Crim. P.
31.01.
Affirmed.