State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1682

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Elizabeth Jean Smith,
Appellant.

Filed June 23, 2025
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Winona County District Court
File No. 85-CR-23-241

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

Karin Sonneman, Winona County Attorney, Winona, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court erred by failing to advise appellant of the
rights under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04 before revoking probation. We affirm.
2
FACTS
In June 2023, appellant Elizabeth Jean Smith1 pleaded guilty to first-degree driving
while impaired (DWI). The presumptive sentence was 66 months in prison. Smith moved
for a downward dispositional departure. In September 2023, the district court determined
that Smith was particularly amenable to chemical-dependency treatment and granted the
request for a departure. The district court imposed a 66-month sentence but stayed
execution of the sentence for five years. Smith’s probation had several conditions,
including compliance with, and successful completion of, the Treatment Court of Winona
County (TCWC).
In March 2024, a TCWC coordinator filed a violation affidavit alleging that Smith
failed to abstain from alcohol and controlled-substance use, failed to attend visits, failed to
submit to drug testing, and failed to comply with TCWC. Smith was sent notice of
termination proceedings and was advised that probable cause showed that Smith “self-
terminated” from TCWC and that reinstatement was “not guaranteed.”
On July 25, 2024, the district court held a hearing. The district court advised Smith
of the right to a public defender and to appeal any decision. The district court also ensured
that Smith understood the length of the prison sentence if executed. Smith stated that,
because he believed that TCWC team members wanted the sentence executed, he would
choose “to execute [his] sentence as of today and . . . go to prison.” The district court stated
that there were “no predetermined outcomes” and explained that Smith could have a

1 According to Smith’s brief, sometime after the district court’s decision, Smith began
identifying using male pronouns.
3
TCWC-termination hearing, and if terminated from TCWC, have a probation-revocation
hearing. Smith consulted with counsel and requested a termination hearing.
The next day, the district court held a contested termination hearing. Smith’s
attorney stated that Smith had discussed the matter with people he trusts and confides in
and decided to request to have the sentence executed. The district court asked Smith if he
had sufficient time to discuss the matter and legal rights with counsel. Smith stated that he
had sufficient time to consult with counsel. The district court then stated: “[Y]ou have
other options here. Those options are to go through with the violation hearing in the
treatment court, possibly then [a] . . . probation [revocation hearing]. So you have other
options to proceed today. Do you understand that?” Smith indicated understanding. The
district court explained: “And you would have a right to contest those hearings, to bring
forth witnesses and evidence. And by proceeding today, to request an execution, . . . you’re
giving up your rights to those contested hearings. Do you understand that?” Smith
indicated understanding and decided to “give up” the rights to a contested hearing.
The district court asked: “Is it your request then for the [c] ourt to execute your
sentence in this matter?” Smith replied: “Yes.” The district court stated that it was
“satisfied that [Smith] is cognizant of what . . . [he] is requesting the [c]ourt to do, what the
consequences will be. The [c]ourt has gone over with [him], as has [his] attorney, regarding
other options that [he] has.” The district court revoked Smith’s probation and executed the
sentence. This appeal followed.
4
DECISION
Smith argues that the district court failed to advise him properly of the rights under
Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04, subd. 2 before revoking probation and executing the sentence.
This court reviews Smith’s failure-to-advise claim for plain error because Smith did not
bring any alleged error to the attention of the district court. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.02
(stating that “[p]lain error affecting a substantial right can be considered . . . on appeal even
if it was not brought to the [district] court’s attention”); State v. Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275,
281 (Minn. 2015). Under the plain -error doctrine, Smith must establish (1) an error,
(2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. See State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d
736, 740 (Minn. 1998). If Smith shows plain error, this court “may correct the error only
if it seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
See State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 437 (Minn. 2001) (quotation omitted). This
analysis does not focus on whether the error harmed the case on review; rather, the focus
of the fairness-and-integrity analysis is on whether “failing to correct the error would have
an impact beyond the current case by causing the public to seriously question whether our
court system has integrity and generally offers accused persons a fair trial.” Pulczinski v.
State, 972 N.W.2d 347, 356 (Minn. 2022).
At a probation-revocation hearing, a district court must
[t]ell the probationer of the right to:

a. a lawyer, including an appointed lawyer if the probationer
cannot afford a lawyer;
b. a revocation hearing to determine whether clear and
convincing evidence of a probation violation exists and
whether probation should be revoked;
5
c. disclosure of all evidence used to support revocation and of
official records relevant to revocation;
d. present evidence, subpoena witnesses, and call and cross-
examine witnesses, except the court may prohibit the
probationer from confrontation if the court believes a
substantial likelihood of serious harm to others exists;
e. present mitigating evidence or other reasons why the
violation, if proved, should not result in revocation;
f. appeal any decision to revoke probation.

Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.04, subd. 2(1)(c). Smith contends that the district court failed to
advise of these rights, and the failure to do so establishes plain error. See Beaulieu, 859
N.W.2d at 282 (stating that plain error is established if the error contravenes a rule of
criminal procedure). The state contends that, while the district court’s advisory lacked
formality, the district court adequately explained the rights to Smith. We agree.
Here, the district court advised Smith of the right to a public defender. The district
court advised Smith of the right to a probation-revocation hearing “to make an argument
. . . about why [he] should be on probation and why [he] should not be sent to prison.” The
district court advised Smith: “[Y] ou would have a right to contest [the termination and
revocation] hearings, to bring forth witnesses and evidence.” The district court asked
Smith: “Are you asking to waive your right to a contested probationary hearing where you
could argue that your probation should not be revoked? Meaning that you should be on
probation and not in prison.” The district court stated: “I want to make sure that you and I
are absolutely clear. You can have another judge, and you can have a probation violation
hearing.” Finally, the district court advised Smith of the right to appeal any decision. We
conclude that the district court properly advised Smith of his rights, and that Smith has
6
failed to show plain error. But even if Smith had established plain error, Smith fails to
show that any error affected substantial rights.
Smith argues that his substantial rights were affected because if the district court
had explained the rights, and Smith understood them, he would have had a contested
hearing.
Here, at the hearing on July 26, 2024, the district court asked Smith’s attorney if she
and Smith discussed Smith’s “legal rights and the proceeding.” Smith’s attorney stated
that Smith discussed the matter with confidants and wanted to request execution of the
sentence. The district court reviewed Smith’s options. And Smith indicated that he
understood that he could have a TCWC-termination hearing and then a probation-
revocation hearing. Smith decided to “give up” the rights to a contested hearing. The
district court stated that it was satisfied that Smith was “cognizant” of what he was
requesting and of the consequences of that decision. Smith does not explain how a more
formal advisory of rights would have resulted in him requesting a contested hearing when
he explicitly waived a contested hearing several times during the two hearings before the
district court. See id. The record supports our conclusion that Smith understood his rights.
Smith has failed to show that the district court committed plain error that affected his
substantial rights, and therefore, we do not consider whether it is necessary to correct any
error to ensure fairness and integrity of the proceeding.
Affirmed.