A19-1223

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1221
A19-1223

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

P. L. C.,
Appellant (A19-1221)

V. M. C.,
Appellant (A19-1223).

Filed April 13, 2020
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-14-22054

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Sean P. Cahill, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Philip Carlson, Wayzata, Minnesota (pro se appellant, P.L.C.)

Virginia Carlson, Wayzata, Minnesota (pro se appellant, V.M.C.)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Reilly,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Appellants challenge the district court’s denial of their expungement petitions. We
affirm.
FACTS
In 2015, appellants P.L.C. and V.M.C. pleaded guilty to felony theft by swindle of
an amount in excess of $5,000. The district court stayed imposition of sentence and placed
appellants on probation. Appellants appealed the convictions. We affirmed the
convictions on appeal, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied further review. See State
v. Carlson, No. A15-1219, 2016 WL 3961792, at *1 (Minn. App. July 25, 2016), review
denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2016); State v. Carlson, No. A15-1210, 2016 WL 3961771, at *1
(Minn. App. July 25, 2016), review denied (Minn. Oct. 26, 2016). Appellants have since
filed numerous petitions for postconviction relief, all of which were denied. A ppellants
were discharged from probation in May 2018 . In November 2018, appellants filed
expungement petitions. The district court denied the petitions, determining that appellants
were not entitled to expungement on statutory grounds or under the inhere nt authority of
the court. Appellants moved for reconsideration of the expungement order s, which the
district court denied. They separately appealed orders denying expungement and the
appeals were consolidated in the order questioning jurisdiction on August 8, 2019.

3
D E C I S I O N
I. The Appeal Is Timely.
The state challenges the timeliness of the appeal. Unless a different time is provided
by statute, an appeal may be taken from an appealable order within 60 days after service
by any party of written n otice of its filing. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 104.01, subd. 1. “An
expungement order shall be stayed automatically for 60 days after the order is filed and, if
the order is appealed, during the appeal period. ” Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 9 (2018).
“This court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal which is not timely served and filed.”
State by Humphrey v. Certified Servs., Inc., 432 N.W.2d 494, 495 (Minn. App. 1988).
The district court denied the expungement petitions on February 5, 2019.
Appellants filed an appeal from this order in August 2019. The state contends that the
appeal is time -barred under Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 9. However, in a special -term
order, this court accepted jurisdiction over th e appeal. The special -term order concluded
that there was no indication that notices of filing of the February 5, 2019 , orders were
served to commence the 60 -day appeal period under Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 9.
Because the time to appeal the February 5, 2019, orders had not expired when appellants
filed this appeal, we accepted jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal is timely.
II. The District Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Denying the Petitions.
A. Standard of Review
Expungement of a criminal record may be ordered pursuant to statute or under a
district court’s inherent authority. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609A.01-.04 (2018); State v. M.D.T.,
831 N.W.2d 276, 279 (Minn. 2013). We review a district court’s denial of an expungement

4
petition for an abuse of discretion. State v. R.H.B ., 821 N.W.2d 817, 822 (Minn. 2012).
We will only reverse the district court’s decision if it is based on an erroneous interpretation
of the law, is arbitrary or capricious, or is against the facts in the record. Id. A district
court’s factual findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. State v. H.A., 716
N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn. App. 2006). A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is
“manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not supported by the evidence as a
whole.” Id. (quotation omitted).
B. Statutory Authority
The district court determined that appellants did not qualify for statutory
expungement. Statutory expungement is available in limited circumstances. See Minn.
Stat. § 609A.02 (2018) (limiting statutory expungement to certain controlled-substance
offenses, to crimes committed by juveniles prosecuted as adults, and to certain enumerated
criminal proceedings). A petitioner may seek expungement if the petitioner “was convicted
of or received a stayed sentence for a felony violation of an offense listed in paragraph (b),
and has not been convicted of a new crime for at least five years since discharge of the
sentence for the crime.” Id., subd. 3(a)(5). Paragraph (b) lists 50 felony offenses to which
subdivision 3(a)(5) applies. Id., subd. 3(b). Here, appellants pleaded guilty to theft by
swindle in excess of $5,000 , under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 3(2) (2015 ). This offense
is not one of the 50 felony offenses enumerated in section 609A.02, subd. 3(b).1 Therefore,
appellants are not eligible for statutory expungement.

1 The list includes convictions arising under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 3(3)(a) (2018)
(theft of $5,000 or less), or Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 3a(1) (2018) (theft of $1,000 or less

5
C. Inherent Authority
The district court also declined to expunge appellants’ records under the court’s
inherent authority. A district court may exercise its inherent authority to expunge criminal
records in two situations: when the petitioner’s constitutional rights are infringed by
retention of the record, or when the district court decides that “expungement will yield a
benefit to the petitioner commensu rate with the disadvantages to the public from the
elimination of the record and the burden on the court in issuing, enforcing and monitoring
an expungement order.” State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256, 258 (M inn. 2000) (quotation
omitted).
First, the district court determined that retention of the records did not infringe upon
appellants’ constitutional rights. On appeal, appellants contend that their constitutional
rights were violated because their guilty pleas were “fabricated” and “bogus,” the district
court lacked jurisdiction, and the criminal charges violated double jeopardy.2 Appellants
failed to provide sufficient factual or legal support for these arguments. Appellants were
convicted of theft by swindle and those convictions have been affirmed on d irect appeal.
Appellants filed numerous postconviction petitions alleging violations of their
constitutional rights. The district court dismissed each of these petitions. The district court

with risk of bodily harm). Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3(b)(20). Appe llants were not
sentenced under either of these subdivisions.
2 Appellants each have two convictions on their records, one for each offense against
different victims . The district court previously rejected appellants’ double -jeopardy
argument, noting that appellants were not being criminally prosecuted for the same offense.

6
did not abuse its discretion by determining that appellants were not entitled to expungement
under the inherent authority of the court based on the infringement of a constitutional right.
The district court also weighed the benefits to appellants if the expungement s were
granted against the disadvantages to the public from eliminating the criminal records, and
the burden on the court in enforcing the order s. See Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d at 258 (noting
alternative basis to grant expungement under inherent authority when constitutional rights
are not involved). The district court considered five factors:
(a) the extent that a petitioner has demonstrated difficulties in
securing employment or housing as a result of the records
sought to be expunged; (b) the seriousness and nature of the
offense; (c) the potential risk that the petitioner poses and how
this affects the public ’s right to access the records; (d) any
additional offenses or rehabilitative efforts since the offense,
and (e) other objective evidence of hardship under the
circumstances.
H.A., 716 N.W.2d at 364.
The district court found that appellants live together in a rented apartment. P.L.C.
works as a home handyman and has had difficulty finding other employment due to his
criminal convictions. And while V.M.C. receives social security retirement benefits
because of her age, she “spent little time . . . discussing any potential employment issues.”
Overall, the district court found that while their criminal records have “caused some
hardship,” appellants “are stable and do have housing.” The district court also found that
the offense was serious in nature, and noted that one of the victims testified at the hearing
and gave a “sincere and wrenching description of the effects of this case upon himself and
his family.” The district court found that appellants “refuse[d] to accept responsibility” for

7
their actions, and have not demonstrated rehabilitative efforts since the offense. Lastly, the
district court noted that “[o]bjective evidence of hardship was not provided.”
The district court’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous, and those findings are
supported by the record. Based on its review of the relevant factors, the district court
determined that the benefit of expungement to appellants did not outweigh the public’s
interest in retaining the records and the burden to the court. Because we discern no abuse
of discretion in the district court’s denial of the expungement petitions, we affirm.3
Affirmed.

3 Appellants raise a number of additional arguments in their brief s. Appellants fail to
support their arguments with relevant legal authority or citations to the record. Generally,
a party who submits a brief without relevant legal authority or legal argument forfeits those
claims. See State v. Krosch , 642 N.W.2d 713, 719 (Minn. 2002) (refusing to consider
arguments raised in pro se brief because it contained “no argument or citation to legal
authority”). We deem appellants’ arguments forfeited.