State of Minnesota v. Amy Jessina Janssen ( 2016 )

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A15-1827
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Amy Jessina Janssen,
Appellant.
Filed October 31, 2016
Appeal dismissed
Rodenberg, Judge
Carver County District Court
File No. 10-CR-14-164
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Mark Metz, Carver County Attorney, Angella M. Erickson, Assistant County Attorney,
Chaska, Minnesota (for respondent)
Amy Jessina Janssen, Waconia, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy, M., Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant Amy Jessina Janssen appeals from the district court’s order finding her
incompetent to stand trial under Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01. Appellant argues that the district
court erred by not allowing her to represent herself at the competency hearing and argues
that her lawyer was ineffective. Because appellant has failed to affirmatively demonstrate
that this court has appellate jurisdiction, and because we decline to grant discretionary
review, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTS
The state charged appellant with felony terroristic threats, gross-misdemeanor
stalking with intent to injure, and misdemeanor disorderly conduct. At a hearing on
March 10, 2015, appellant’s attorney moved for a competency evaluation under Minn. R.
Crim. P. 20.01.1 Appellant agreed with her attorney’s request. At some point after that
hearing, appellant fired her public defender, and a new attorney was appointed to represent
her.
A court-appointed psychologist who met with appellant reported to the court that
appellant was not competent to stand trial. Appellant objected to the report and requested
a hearing to determine her competency under Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 5.
At the competency hearing, appellant’s attorney did not introduce evidence to
contradict the court-appointed psychologist’s report. After hearing this, appellant asked
the district court to remove her attorney. The district court declined the request. Appellant
then attempted to introduce evidence, without the assistance of her lawyer, purportedly to
rebut the court-appointed psychologist’s report and conclusion. The district court did not
permit appellant to introduce evidence, based on its determination that appellant was not
competent. As a result of the district court’s determination of appellant’s incompetency,
1
Appellant’s attorney also moved for an evaluation under Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.02, but
mental-illness defense issues are not involved in this appeal.
2
the criminal case against appellant was stayed under Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 8. For
reasons not directly relevant to this appeal, no civil commitment proceeding was
commenced concerning appellant. Appellant then appealed pro se from the district court’s
determination that she is not competent.
DECISION
Generally, a defendant is entitled to appeal as of right from a final judgment. Minn.
R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 2. There are limited exceptions to this general rule. Id. The only
exception relevant here is that a defendant in a felony or gross misdemeanor case may
appeal from an order “not on the defendant’s motion, finding the defendant incompetent to
stand trial.” Id., subd. 2(2)(b)(2). An appellant must make appellate jurisdiction “appear
plainly and affirmatively from the record presented.” State v. Ciurleo, 471 N.W.2d 119,
121 (Minn. App. 1991). We may dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction if an appellant does
not provide an adequate basis for our exercise of appellate jurisdiction in the record. Id.Here, the district court’s determination that appellant is not competent to stand trial
followed from appellant’s own motion. Her appeal falls outside those competency
determinations that are appealable as of right under rule 28.02, subd. 2(2)(b)(2).
We may exercise our discretion to allow “an appeal from an order not otherwise
appealable,” but are not required to accept such appeals. Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 3;
see also State v. Smith, 656 N.W.2d 420, 423-24 (Minn. App. 2003) (declining to exercise
our discretion to review an appeal when appellant did not “establish a compelling reason
to grant discretionary review”). We deny discretionary review where an appellant has no
appeal as of right and has not provided a compelling reason to grant discretionary review.
3
See State v. Murphy, 537 N.W.2d 492, 494 (Minn. App. 1995) (declining to grant
discretionary review when appellant did not provide an adequate record or a compelling
reason for us to hear the appeal).
Here, appellant has not identified a compelling argument in favor of our granting
discretionary review. The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly contemplate
this scenario and provide for no appeal as of right. Appellant moved for a competency
examination and report. She agreed with her then-attorney’s motion under rule 20.
Because appellant herself requested the examination and report and was successful in
obtaining a stay of the criminal charges against her, we decline to exercise our discretionary
appellate jurisdiction.
Appeal dismissed.
4