This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1354
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
vs.
Charles Louis Gollop, Respondent.
Filed March 28, 2016 Reversed and remanded Larkin, Judge
Dakota County District Court File No. 19HA-CR-14-3499
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Alina Schwartz, Campbell Knutson, Eagan, Minnesota (for appellant)
Peter J. Martin, Martin Law Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Rodenberg,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s order granting a stay of adjudication over
appellant’s objection. Because the record does not support a finding that the prosecutor clearly abused his discretion in the exercise of the charging function, we reverse and
remand for resentencing.
FACTS
In October 2014, appellant State of Minnesota charged respondent Charles Louis
Gollop with interference with an emergency call, domestic assault, fifth-degree assault, and
disorderly conduct. The complaint alleged that Gollop confronted his spouse, J.E., as she
arrived at a Park and Ride with a male co-worker, R.P. J.E. was a passenger in R.P.’s
vehicle. According to the complaint, Gollop ran up to the driver’s door of R.P.’s vehicle,
opened the door, yelled at R.P., told him to exit the vehicle, and knocked R.P.’s glasses
off. J.E. told an investigating officer that Gollop grabbed her and threw her to the ground
when she tried to get between Gollop and R.P. and that she sustained injuries to her right
elbow, right wrist, and left foot as a result. The officer observed marks on J.E.’s right
elbow, right wrist, and left foot. J.E. reported that after R.P. drove away, she attempted to
call 911 on her cellular phone, but Gollop grabbed the phone out of her hands and threw it.
J.E. stated that she “did not feel safe” and was fearful of what Gollop might do.
In June 2015, Gollop pleaded guilty to the disorderly conduct charge, pursuant to a
plea agreement that called for a stay of imposition of sentence and stayed jail time. The
other charges were dismissed. The district court deferred acceptance of Gollop’s plea until
sentencing and ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
The PSI recommended that the district court order a stay of adjudication. At the
sentencing hearing, the prosecutor stated that he had reviewed “the recommendations [of
the PSI], they do appear to be consistent with the plea agreement in this matter and we
2 simply recommend that the Court follow them.” During the hearing, the district court told
Gollop “I also understand and support the service to your communities that you participated
in law enforcement in; and that certainly is taken into account by this Court as I do the
sentence in this case for a stay of adjudication to allow you to have a complete dismissal.”
After the district court stated that it was going to order a stay of adjudication, the
prosecutor objected, arguing that the plea agreement was for a stay of imposition and that
the state had not agreed to a stay of adjudication. After hearing argument from the parties,
the district court ordered a stay of adjudication over the prosecutor’s objection. Defense
counsel asked whether the district court was “saying that the discretion of the prosecutor
in continuing with the — with the charge may have been abused, justifying, . . . a stay of
adjudication.” The district court replied, “Yes.”
The prosecutor questioned whether there was a factual basis for such a finding, and
the district court gave the following explanation:
Perhaps I should interject at this stage. I appreciate your comments, [prosecutor]. It is a conclusion of law that is — has been a part of the case discussions on this matter. And I’m certainly not attempting in any way to impugn your decision making or your conduct on this matter as prosecuting attorney. I will indicate to support the Court’s conclusion that this Court began to preside over this hearing as a visiting Judge. And I was not presiding over the matter at the time of the plea. And I reviewed the Presentence Investigation materials and I saw that there was a recommendation[] for a stay of adjudication, and I thought that was very appropriate. And I then heard you, [prosecutor] indicate that you support the recommendations. And the Court went forward in doing its disposition, with the understanding that both attorneys had reviewed and not made corrections to the Presentence Investigation materials.
3 The defense relied on the recommendations, as part of its arguments, and the defendant relied on the recommendations, as part of any statements he had a right to make. And based upon all of the circumstances, the Court will maintain the stay of adjudication, subject to appeal.
The state appeals the district court’s order for a stay of adjudication.1
DECISION
“Except as provided in section 152.18 or 609.375, or upon agreement of the parties,
a court may not refuse to adjudicate the guilt of a defendant who tenders a guilty plea . . .
or who has been found guilty by a court or jury following a trial.” Minn. Stat. § 609.095(b)
(2014). A district court may stay an adjudication of guilt over the prosecutor’s objection
“only for the purpose of avoiding an injustice resulting from the prosecutor’s clear abuse
of discretion in the exercise of the charging function.” State v. Lee, 706 N.W.2d 491, 496
(Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted). A prosecutor has broad discretion in the exercise of the
charging function and under the separation-of-powers doctrine, a court generally should
not interfere with the prosecutor’s exercise of that discretion. State v. Foss, 556 N.W.2d
540, 540 (Minn. 1996). A district court’s “mere disagreement” with a prosecutor’s
charging decision does not justify a stay of adjudication over the prosecutor’s objection.
Id. at 541; see State v. Martin, 849 N.W.2d 99, 105 (Minn. App. 2014) (reversing district
court’s order staying adjudication in part because the facts noted by the district court were
1 Gollop did not file a brief in this appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03 (providing that if respondent fails to file a brief, the case shall be determined on the merits).
4 nothing more than “mere disagreement” with the prosecutor’s charging decision), review
denied (Sept. 24, 2014).
The existence of special circumstances does not justify a stay of adjudication over
the prosecutor’s objection. See Lee, 706 N.W.2d at 496 (holding that special
circumstances, in the absence of a clear abuse of the charging function, do not justify a stay
of adjudication over the prosecutor’s objection). However, special circumstances may be
relevant to a district court’s decision to stay adjudication “to the extent that those
circumstances tend to establish a clear abuse of the prosecutorial charging function.” State
v. Strok, 786 N.W.2d 297, 303 n.4 (Minn. App. 2010). “Collateral consequences of a
conviction do not constitute special circumstances supporting a stay of adjudication.” State
v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1354
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
vs.
Charles Louis Gollop, Respondent.
Filed March 28, 2016 Reversed and remanded Larkin, Judge
Dakota County District Court File No. 19HA-CR-14-3499
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Alina Schwartz, Campbell Knutson, Eagan, Minnesota (for appellant)
Peter J. Martin, Martin Law Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Rodenberg,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s order granting a stay of adjudication over
appellant’s objection. Because the record does not support a finding that the prosecutor clearly abused his discretion in the exercise of the charging function, we reverse and
remand for resentencing.
FACTS
In October 2014, appellant State of Minnesota charged respondent Charles Louis
Gollop with interference with an emergency call, domestic assault, fifth-degree assault, and
disorderly conduct. The complaint alleged that Gollop confronted his spouse, J.E., as she
arrived at a Park and Ride with a male co-worker, R.P. J.E. was a passenger in R.P.’s
vehicle. According to the complaint, Gollop ran up to the driver’s door of R.P.’s vehicle,
opened the door, yelled at R.P., told him to exit the vehicle, and knocked R.P.’s glasses
off. J.E. told an investigating officer that Gollop grabbed her and threw her to the ground
when she tried to get between Gollop and R.P. and that she sustained injuries to her right
elbow, right wrist, and left foot as a result. The officer observed marks on J.E.’s right
elbow, right wrist, and left foot. J.E. reported that after R.P. drove away, she attempted to
call 911 on her cellular phone, but Gollop grabbed the phone out of her hands and threw it.
J.E. stated that she “did not feel safe” and was fearful of what Gollop might do.
In June 2015, Gollop pleaded guilty to the disorderly conduct charge, pursuant to a
plea agreement that called for a stay of imposition of sentence and stayed jail time. The
other charges were dismissed. The district court deferred acceptance of Gollop’s plea until
sentencing and ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
The PSI recommended that the district court order a stay of adjudication. At the
sentencing hearing, the prosecutor stated that he had reviewed “the recommendations [of
the PSI], they do appear to be consistent with the plea agreement in this matter and we
2 simply recommend that the Court follow them.” During the hearing, the district court told
Gollop “I also understand and support the service to your communities that you participated
in law enforcement in; and that certainly is taken into account by this Court as I do the
sentence in this case for a stay of adjudication to allow you to have a complete dismissal.”
After the district court stated that it was going to order a stay of adjudication, the
prosecutor objected, arguing that the plea agreement was for a stay of imposition and that
the state had not agreed to a stay of adjudication. After hearing argument from the parties,
the district court ordered a stay of adjudication over the prosecutor’s objection. Defense
counsel asked whether the district court was “saying that the discretion of the prosecutor
in continuing with the — with the charge may have been abused, justifying, . . . a stay of
adjudication.” The district court replied, “Yes.”
The prosecutor questioned whether there was a factual basis for such a finding, and
the district court gave the following explanation:
Perhaps I should interject at this stage. I appreciate your comments, [prosecutor]. It is a conclusion of law that is — has been a part of the case discussions on this matter. And I’m certainly not attempting in any way to impugn your decision making or your conduct on this matter as prosecuting attorney. I will indicate to support the Court’s conclusion that this Court began to preside over this hearing as a visiting Judge. And I was not presiding over the matter at the time of the plea. And I reviewed the Presentence Investigation materials and I saw that there was a recommendation[] for a stay of adjudication, and I thought that was very appropriate. And I then heard you, [prosecutor] indicate that you support the recommendations. And the Court went forward in doing its disposition, with the understanding that both attorneys had reviewed and not made corrections to the Presentence Investigation materials.
3 The defense relied on the recommendations, as part of its arguments, and the defendant relied on the recommendations, as part of any statements he had a right to make. And based upon all of the circumstances, the Court will maintain the stay of adjudication, subject to appeal.
The state appeals the district court’s order for a stay of adjudication.1
DECISION
“Except as provided in section 152.18 or 609.375, or upon agreement of the parties,
a court may not refuse to adjudicate the guilt of a defendant who tenders a guilty plea . . .
or who has been found guilty by a court or jury following a trial.” Minn. Stat. § 609.095(b)
(2014). A district court may stay an adjudication of guilt over the prosecutor’s objection
“only for the purpose of avoiding an injustice resulting from the prosecutor’s clear abuse
of discretion in the exercise of the charging function.” State v. Lee, 706 N.W.2d 491, 496
(Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted). A prosecutor has broad discretion in the exercise of the
charging function and under the separation-of-powers doctrine, a court generally should
not interfere with the prosecutor’s exercise of that discretion. State v. Foss, 556 N.W.2d
540, 540 (Minn. 1996). A district court’s “mere disagreement” with a prosecutor’s
charging decision does not justify a stay of adjudication over the prosecutor’s objection.
Id. at 541; see State v. Martin, 849 N.W.2d 99, 105 (Minn. App. 2014) (reversing district
court’s order staying adjudication in part because the facts noted by the district court were
1 Gollop did not file a brief in this appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03 (providing that if respondent fails to file a brief, the case shall be determined on the merits).
4 nothing more than “mere disagreement” with the prosecutor’s charging decision), review
denied (Sept. 24, 2014).
The existence of special circumstances does not justify a stay of adjudication over
the prosecutor’s objection. See Lee, 706 N.W.2d at 496 (holding that special
circumstances, in the absence of a clear abuse of the charging function, do not justify a stay
of adjudication over the prosecutor’s objection). However, special circumstances may be
relevant to a district court’s decision to stay adjudication “to the extent that those
circumstances tend to establish a clear abuse of the prosecutorial charging function.” State
v. Strok, 786 N.W.2d 297, 303 n.4 (Minn. App. 2010). “Collateral consequences of a
conviction do not constitute special circumstances supporting a stay of adjudication.” State
v. Ohrt, 619 N.W.2d 790, 792 (Minn. App. 2000) (citation and quotation omitted).
“This court applies a de novo standard of review to a district court order that
precludes adjudication of a defendant’s guilt.” Martin, 849 N.W.2d at 105.
The state argues that there is no basis for the stay of adjudication in this case because
“[t]he prosecutor did not ‘clearly abuse’ his discretion in the exercise of the charging
function.” The state contends that “[t]he record at the time of both the plea hearing and
sentencing hearing is void of any allegations of ‘clear abuse of discretion’ by the prosecutor
in the exercise of the charging function.” We agree.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court told the prosecutor that “I’m certainly
not attempting in any way to impugn your decision making or your conduct on this matter
as prosecuting attorney.” That statement suggests that the district court did not find a clear
abuse of discretion in the exercise of the charging function. Moreover, the record does not
5 support such a finding. Although the prosecutor initially told the district court that he
agreed with the PSI recommendations at the sentencing hearing, he corrected himself and
objected to the stay of adjudication. The prosecutor’s failure to immediately object to the
stay of adjudication at the sentencing hearing does not constitute a clear abuse of charging
discretion.
The district court mentioned the “consequences and punishments that have
happened as a result of this offense” and that it understood “how the short jail term in this
case was extremely embarrassing to [Gollop],” apparently referring to Gollop’s attorney’s
statement that Gollop had served two days in jail with many of the people he had arrested
over the years as a police officer. The district court also noted that there were “differences
of opinion” regarding what occurred during the underlying incident. Lastly, the district
court mentioned that it “support[ed] the service to [Gollop’s] communities that [Gollop]
participated in law enforcement in.” These reasons do not establish a clear abuse of
charging discretion.
In sum, the record does not indicate any circumstances that would support a finding
that the prosecutor committed a clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of the charging
function. The district court therefore erred by ordering a stay of adjudication over the
prosecutor’s objection. We reverse the stay of adjudication and remand for resentencing.
Reversed and remanded.