Data Recognition Corporation, Respondent, vs. Scan-Optics, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, Appellant.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1998).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Dale Greer a/k/a D'Leuchi Morris,

Appellant.

Filed June 20, 2000

Ramsey County District Court

File No. K5971374

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park St., Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103-2106; and

Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Jeanne L. Schleh, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)

Bradford Colbert, Assistant State Public Defender, 875 Summit Ave., Room 254, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for appellant)

            Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Davies, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

DAVIES, Judge

            Appellant challenges a provision in a court order that makes a defective forfeiture refund subject to his payment of a restitution obligation.  We reverse.

            On July 10, 1997, appellant Dale Dewayne Greer was convicted of second-degree assault and terroristic threats, sentenced to 65 months in prison, and ordered to pay $925 in restitution.  When appellant was arrested, he had in his possession $1,149.88 in cash, which was seized under an administrative forfeiture.

            Appellant moved to recover those funds.  The district court found that the administrative forfeiture had been improperly served on appellant and ordered the money returned to him.  But the court made the return subject to payment of his restitution obligation.  This appeal follows.

            "The trial court has broad discretion in imposing restitution."  State v. Olson, 381 N.W.2d 899, 900 (Minn. App. 1986).  Restitution is docketed as a civil judgment.  Minn. Stat. § 611 A. 04, subd. 3 (1998).  A restitution order "may be enforced by any person named in the order to receive the restitution * * * in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action."  Id.

            The district court ordered that funds required to be returned to appellant after a defective administrative forfeiture proceeding were to be applied to pay appellant's unsatisfied restitution obligation.

The only property a district court is specifically authorized to seize to enforce restitution is a convicted defendant's bail deposit.  Minn. Stat. § 629.53 (1998) ("judge may order the money bail deposit to be applied to any fine or restitution imposed on the defendant").  Otherwise, restitution is to be enforced as a civil judgment.  Minn. Stat. § 611 A. 04, subd. 3.

The forfeiture proceeding finally determined appellant's right to the money.  There is no provision in the forfeiture statute for an offset against a restitution obligation.  See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.5311, 609.5312, 609.5314, subd. 3 (1998).  The district court abused its discretion when it used an enforcement mechanism not authorized by statute to pay restitution.

            Reversed.