In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. C. D., Child.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-0595

In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. C. D., Child.

Filed December 30, 2024
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-JV-23-3032

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-JV-24-66

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

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

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Nicole Cornale, Assistant County Attorney,
Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Kevin Magnuson, Washington County Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Bentley,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
In this direct appeal from an adjudication of delinquency for unlawful possession of
a firearm, appellant argues that, despite his failure to bring a timely posttrial motion to the
district court, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in district court to further develop the
2
record for his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Because, pursuant to the rules of
juvenile procedure, a posttrial motion is the only method available for appellant to obtain
a hearing before the district court to pursue his claim, and appellant failed to bring such a
motion, we affirm.
FACTS
In November 2023, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant D.C.D. with
possession of a firearm in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(1) (2022), a felony
offense. The following facts derive from D.C.D.’s trial.
On October 30, 2023, law enforcement received a report of a stolen vehicle. The
vehicle was tracked by a state -patrol helicopter and seen traveling at a high rate of speed
between counties. The vehicle eventually stopped. Two of the occupants—later identified
as D.C.D. and T.C.— got into a second vehicle and continued traveling at a high rate of
speed into another city. The second vehicle eventually stopped at an apartment complex
and D.C.D. and T.C. exited.
Officers then observed D.C.D. and T.C. exit the apartment complex and enter the
back seat of a Nissan Ultima driven by a rideshare driver. Officers observed D.C.D.
wearing a black hoodie under a black jacket and carrying a black backpack on his left side
while T.C. wore a tan hoodie and carried a phone in his hand. D.C.D. sat directly behind
the driver; T.C. sat directly behind the passenger seat. As he was entering the Nissan,
officers observed D.C.D. place the backpack on the floor between the driver’s seat and his
seat. An officer blocked the Nissan from leaving, approached the passenger side of the car,
3
and confirmed it was T.C. in the rear passenger seat, and D.C.D., who informed the officer
of his identity, was seated behind the driver. D.C.D. and T.C. were arrested.
Officers searched the Nissan and found that the floormat where D.C.D. had been
sitting was “noticeably up in the air and [it] appeared that there was something under it.”
Underneath the floormat, the officers seized the black backpack. A search of the backpack
resulted in the seizure of a firearm. Officers testified that D.C.D. was under 18 years old
and had not completed a marksmanship class that would have allowed him to legally
possess a gun.
The Hennepin County District Court concluded that the state had proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that D.C.D. constructively possessed a firearm while ineligible to do so.
The district court withheld adjudication and transferred the matter for disposition to
Washington County, where D.C.D. resides. See Minn. Stat. § 260B.105 (2022). The
Washington County District Court adjudicated D.C.D. as delinquent and placed him on
probation. D.C.D. appeals.
DECISION
D.C.D. asks this court for the first time on direct appeal, to remand this matter to
the district court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to obtain and present relevant evidence in support of his defense at
trial. However, D.C.D. concedes that he did not bring a timely posttrial motion pursuant
to Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 16.01, subd. 1(H), which explicitly provides for a new trial
based, among other reasons, upon ineffective assistance of counsel. D.C.D. asks this court
to remand for a hearing “in the interests of justice.” This, we cannot do.
4
“[A]n undecided question is not usually amenable to appellate review.” Hoyt Inv.
Co. v. Bloomington Com. & Trade Ctr. Assocs., 418 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn. 1988).
Because D.C.D. did not first raise this issue in district court, it is not properly before this
court. See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts
generally address only those questions previously presented to and considered by the
district court).
But to be thorough, we consider D.C.D.’s claim on its merits. In juvenile
proceedings, posttrial motions are governed by Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 16.01. We
interpret procedural rules de novo. In re Welfare of C.J.H., 878 N.W.2d 15, 19 (Minn.
2016). “When construing procedural rules, we look to the plain language of the rule and
its purpose.” Id. (quotation omitted). Rule 16.01, subd. 1(H), provides that “[t]he court,
on written motion of the child’ s counsel, may grant a new trial” based upon “ineffective
assistance of [the] child’s counsel.” The motion “shall be served within fifteen (15) days
after the court’s specific findings are made.” Id., subd. 3. D.C.D. did not bring such a
motion. D.C.D. cites no authority, and we are not aware of any that would allow this court
to “order Appellant’s case be remanded to the juvenile court for an evidentiary hearing,”
when the time for a posttrial motion has expired. Moreover, other than a posttrial motion,
there is no legal authority authorizing a district court to grant the remedy that D.C.D seeks
if we granted the remand.
D.C.D. instead argues that this time constraint (15 days following the district court’s
findings) of rule 16.01 “does not meaningfully provide juvenile defendants with a vehicle
by which to raise a colorable” ineffective-assistance-of -counsel claim. D.C.D. further
5
notes that, as a practical matter, a juvenile’s trial counsel is unlikely to be inclined to bring
a motion before the district court for ineffective assistance of that counsel. Finally, D.C.D.
argues that, unlike adults who have the statutory option of bringing a postconviction
petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (2022), there is no such option for
juveniles.
Though D.C.D.’s claims are not without merit in terms of the practical limitations
the posttrial-motion rule provides to a juvenile who wishes to bring such a claim before the
district court, the remedy he seeks is beyond the authority of this court. 1 “The function of
the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and then correcting them.” Sefkow v.
Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988) (citations omitted). We are limited to
“correcting errors” and do not create public policy. LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d
151, 159 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000).
Because D.C.D. did not bring a timely posttrial motion for a new trial based upon
ineffective assistance of counsel, he is not entitled to have the matter remanded for an
evidentiary hearing. Therefore, we affirm.
Affirmed.

1 We note that the supreme court has ordered the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on
the Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Delinquency Procedure to consider whether the rules
“should be amended to create a procedural mechanism for a post-adjudication or
post-certification evidentiary proceeding to develop a record for a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, or any other appropriate claim.” In re Proposed Amendments to
Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Delinquency Procedure, No. ADM10- 8003 (Minn. July 28,
2022). The supreme court recently held a public hearing to consider the proposed
amendment. See Order Regarding Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the
Minnesota Rules of Juvenile Delinquency Procedure, No. ADM10-8003 (Minn. Oct. 10,
2024).