OAH 61-1100-19501

 

 

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

 

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

In the Matter of the Risk Level Determination of Garey Ledin

ORDER FOR PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND ORDER

FOR CONTINUED HEARING

 

          Upon the motion by counsel for Mr. Ledin, and after consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) has determined that, good cause being shown, continuation of the hearing for additional testimony is necessary and appropriate, therefore

          IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1.               A prehearing conference in this matter, by telephone conference, will occur on June 10, 2008, at 11:00 a.m., by and among Noah Cashman, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134, (651) 296-08406, appearing for the Department of Corrections End-of-Confinement Review Committee (ECRC) (“Department” and/or “ECRC”), Brian C. Southwell, Attorney at Law, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 500, Minneapolis, MN 55415, (612) 337-9573 appearing for Mr. Ledin, and the undersigned ALJ.

2.               The purpose of the prehearing conference shall be limited to selecting a date and time for continuing the hearing in this matter for the relevant testimony of Caroline Ledin and Fred Ledin, Jr.

3.               The interests of justice require a continuance as specified in the attached Memorandum that is part of this Order.

Dated: June 3, 2008

 

 

 

                                                                      s/M. Kevin Snell

M. Kevin Snell

Administrative Law Judge

(612) 370-0374

 

MEMORANDUM

 

 

          The ultimate issue in this matter is whether or not the End of Confinement Review Committee (ECRC) erred in assigning the Petitioner a Risk Level 3 classification.

 

          In order to ensure a fair disposition of this matter, the parties are entitled to as complete and accurate record of the relevant factual evidence as possible. The relevant facts to the ALJ’s decision to allow a continuance to permit additional testimony are as follows:

 

1.               The ECRC record is incomplete because the recorded record of the February 8, 2008, ECRC meeting failed and is unavailable; and

 

2.               Two witnesses, Caroline Ledin and Fred Ledin, Jr., were present at MCF-Stillwater on the date of the hearing, but were not permitted admittance into the facility because they had not notified MCF-Stillwater in sufficient advance time for their background checks to be completed; and

 

3.               After a review of the record of the hearing, the ALJ has determined that the ECRC committed at least one error in arriving at its decision to assign Mr. Ledin a Risk Level 3.

 

          Mr. Ledin’s motion for a continuance is granted.[1]  Objections by the Department to certain testimony are preserved.  Because the ALJ has found error by the ECRC, there will be a de novo review of all relevant evidence in this matter by the ALJ.  Because of these circumstances, it is appropriate to continue the hearing for the relevant testimony of Caroline Ledin and Fred Ledin, Jr.

 

          Relevant evidence that relates to: the scoring of the MnSOST-R; and the statutory risk factors under Minn. Stat. § 244.052, subd. 3(g); may be admitted. However, evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial or improper will be excluded at the hearing.  Such evidence includes testimony that would be a collateral attack on the July 17, 2006, and June 14, 2007, factual findings, conclusions and decisions of the of the Department’s Hearing and Release Unit.

 

M.K.S.


[1] Minn. R. 1400.7500 provide in applicable part:

Requests for a continuance of a hearing shall be granted upon a showing of good cause . . . .

During a hearing, if it appears in the interest of justice that further testimony should be received and sufficient time does not remain to conclude the testimony, the judge shall either order the additional testimony be taken by deposition or continue the hearing to a future date and oral notice on the record shall be sufficient.”