STATE OF MINNESOTA

                                    IN SUPREME COURT

                                        A22-1727


Court of Appeals                                                           Hudson, C.J.
                                                               Took no part, Hennesy, J.
State of Minnesota,

                      Respondent,

vs.                                                                 Filed: July 31, 2024
                                                              Office of Appellate Courts
Blair Benedict Oberton,

                      Appellant.


                              ________________________

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and

Kristyn M. Anderson, Minneapolis City Attorney, Amy J. Tripp-Steiner, Assistant
Minneapolis City Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Richard A. Schmitz, Assistant
Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.
                             ________________________

SYLLABUS

      1.     This appeal is not moot because the collateral consequences exception to the

mootness doctrine applies.

      2.     Although 180 days is the maximum sentence allowed by law when direct

contempt is summarily sentenced for punitive purposes under a district court’s inherent

authority, a district court should, as a matter of comity to the Legislature, limit its



                                           1
sentence—consistent with the maximum sentence for statutory misdemeanor contempt—

to 90 days and a $1,000 fine unless the person’s conduct is extraordinary.

       3.     In the exercise of our supervisory power to ensure the fair administration of

justice, we announce that when a district court determines in a contempt order that a

defendant’s conduct is extraordinary, the court must make oral or written findings

describing the extraordinary conduct within 7 days of the direct contempt order so that an

appellate court is able to review the district court’s order for arbitrariness, capriciousness,

and oppressiveness.

       Reversed and remanded.

OPINION

HUDSON, Chief Justice.

       In this case we are asked to address the authority of the district court to sentence a

defendant summarily for direct contempt. The district court found appellant Blair Benedict

Oberton in direct criminal contempt of court for his profanity-laced outburst during a

judicial proceeding that was partially directed at the district court judge. The district court

then summarily imposed the maximum 180-day sentence allowed under its inherent

authority. This appeal presents two questions: first, whether this appeal is moot because

Oberton has fully served his sentence; and second, whether a district court is required to

make a finding of extraordinary conduct when it summarily imposes the maximum 180-day

sentence allowed by law. See State v. Tatum, 

 (Minn. 1996). On appeal,

Oberton contended that our decision in Tatum required the district court to make a finding

of extraordinary conduct before imposing a 180-day sentence and that the record did not


                                              2
reflect such a finding. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that findings are not

required in order to support a 180-day sentence summarily imposed under the district

court’s inherent authority to punish direct contempt.

       By the time we granted Oberton’s petition for review, he had already served his

180-day sentence. Notwithstanding that fact, we conclude that Oberton’s appeal is not

moot because the collateral consequences exception to the mootness doctrine applies. We

also affirm our holding in Tatum and restate it to clarify the inapplicability of the rule

announced in Blakely v. Washington, 

 (2004). Finally, rather than decide

whether Tatum requires a finding of extraordinary conduct, in the exercise of our

supervisory power to ensure the fair administration of justice, we announce a new rule to

ensure effective appellate review. Although we apply this rule prospectively, we conclude

that under the unique circumstances of this case, the interests of justice and judicial

economy require that the 180-day sentence be reversed and a 90-day sentence with credit

for time served be entered on remand.

                                         FACTS

       On November 1, 2022, Blair Benedict Oberton made an in-custody appearance in

district court on a felony charge with multiple misdemeanor trespass cases also pending.

The court conditionally released Oberton from jail to a chemical dependency treatment

program. The other conditions of his release included obeying all laws and staying away

from the University of Minnesota campus, the site of his alleged trespasses. As part of his

conditional release, Oberton was not required to post bail.




                                             3
       After Oberton was released, police again arrested him for misdemeanor trespassing

on the University of Minnesota campus. On November 7, 2022, Oberton made an

in-custody appearance in district court on the new trespass charge. The prosecutor

requested bail be set at $300, emphasizing that Oberton had immediately returned to the

University of Minnesota campus in violation of the November 1, 2022 conditional release

order and that he had 20 other cases of trespass, at least some of which were pending at

that time. Oberton’s attorney asked the court to release Oberton without bail, emphasizing

that Oberton was attending chemical dependency treatment on an outpatient basis.

       After hearing from the prosecutor and Oberton’s attorney, the district court set bail

in the amount of $300 and ordered several release conditions. As the court announced

these release conditions, Oberton interjected, “What about . . . [an] out of custody Rule 25,

with bed-to-bed transfer, can we do that?”1 He then expressed disbelief that the court was

“making [him] post bail.” When Oberton’s attorney reiterated the request for a chemical

use assessment at Oberton’s direction, the court expressed its opinion that such an

assessment was unnecessary given that Oberton was already in treatment.                After

acknowledging he was currently in treatment, Oberton expressed his belief that it was

“ridiculous” the court was “requiring bail,” at which point the district court told Oberton:

“Thank you. That’s enough. You’re done.”


1
       A “Rule 25” refers to a discontinued process for conducting mandatory chemical
use assessments for individuals receiving publicly-funded substance use treatment under
Minn. Stat. § 256D.05, subd. 1(a)(13) (2022). See Minn. Dep’t Hum. Servs., Bull.
No. 22-69-03, General Assistance and Direct Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment
(Apr. 22, 2022). The Rule 25 process was discontinued and, as of July 1, 2022, replaced
by a separate process known as “Direct Access.” See id.

                                             4
       Despite the district court’s directive, Oberton engaged in a prolonged profanity-

laced outburst that included statements directly impugning the dignity of the court. In

response to Oberton’s profane statements, the court told Oberton’s attorney, “[Y]our . . .

client’s just been found in contempt. He’ll be held.” After Oberton repeatedly said, “Held,

what?” the court replied, “How about 6 months.”          Oberton responded with another

profanity-laced outburst that continued to impugn the dignity of the court. Ignoring the

outburst, the court continued, “[S]ix months in jail. Do we know . . . how we do that?”

The courtroom clerk replied, “[W]e’ll find out, Your Honor,” after which the court

described the situation as “pretty spectacular.”

       Oberton appealed his 180-day sentence, contending that our decision in State v.

Tatum, 

 (Minn. 1996), required the district court to make a finding of

extraordinary conduct before imposing a 180-day sentence and that the record failed to

reflect such a finding. The court of appeals affirmed his sentence, explaining that although

Tatum “suggests that a district court should explain its decision to exceed the presumptive

90-day maximum when summarily imposing a contempt sentence under its inherent

authority,” the court of appeals had previously rejected a similar argument in State v.

Lingwall, 

 (Minn. App. 2001) (concluding factual findings were not

necessary to support a 180-day sentence). The court of appeals then looked to the transcript

of the district court proceedings to consider whether Oberton’s contemptuous conduct

warranted a 180-day sentence, ultimately finding the district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing a 180-day sentence. We granted Oberton’s petition for review.




                                             5
                                       ANALYSIS

       On appeal, Oberton argues that the district court erred because State v. Tatum,

 (Minn. 1996), requires a district court to make a finding of extraordinary

conduct when it summarily punishes direct contempt with a 180-day sentence under the

court’s inherent authority. As a preliminary matter, we first determine whether Oberton’s

appeal is moot. Then, we revisit Tatum, affirming and clarifying its holding. Finally, we

address Oberton’s claim that Tatum requires a district court to make findings not made here

and, in the exercise of our supervisory power to ensure the fair administration of justice,

we announce a new rule to ensure effective appellate review in future cases.

                                             I.

       By the time we granted Oberton’s petition for review, he had already served the

180-day sentence that is the subject of this appeal. Relying on the collateral consequences

doctrine, Oberton argues his appeal is not moot because the 180-day sentence could have

an impact on sentencing should Oberton be convicted of an offense in the future.2

       Courts in this state may only hear actual cases and controversies. In re Application

of the Senate, 

 (1865). When faced with an appeal where “a decision on

the merits is no longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible,” we

will dismiss it as moot. Dean v. City of Winona, 

 (Minn. 2015).




2
       Because we agree with Oberton that his appeal is not moot under the collateral
consequences doctrine, we need not address his alternative arguments regarding the
functional justiciability or repetition-evading-review exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

                                             6
       We have recognized that an appeal is not moot, however, “[w]here an appellant

produces evidence that collateral consequences actually resulted from a judgment.” In re

McCaskill, 

 (Minn. 1999). We presume that collateral consequences

result from a judgment—and thus do not require actual evidence—where a party

demonstrates that “ ‘real and substantial’ disabilities attach to a judgment.” 

 (quoting

Morrissey v. State, 

 (Minn. 1970)). “The standard for finding that the

issues involved in a criminal appeal are moot is very stringent,” and “[w]here there remains

a ‘possibility’ that ‘adverse collateral legal consequences’ will inure to the complaining

party, the case is not moot.” State ex rel. Djonne v. Schoen, 

 (Minn.

1974) (quoting Sibron v. New York, 

 (1968)). We have previously

concluded that potential sentencing consequences in the future satisfy the collateral

consequences doctrine. State v. Jones, 

, 546 n.1 (Minn. 1994) (concluding

that an appeal was not moot because the appellant “now has a criminal history which could

have an impact on sentencing should he be convicted of a crime in the future”).

       The State does not contest that Oberton’s 180-day sentence could have an impact

on sentencing should he be convicted of a felony offense in the future.3 Instead, it argues

that this possibility does not satisfy the “real and substantial disabilities” requirement of




3
       Because of the State’s silence on this point, we need not decide whether a 180-day
sentence summarily imposed under the district court’s inherent authority to punish direct
contempt falls within Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 2.B.3.a(2), which directs that one
unit of a criminal history point be assigned for each prior non-traffic gross misdemeanor
conviction, and that four units equal one criminal history point.

                                             7
the collateral consequence doctrine, which the State claims we narrowed last term in

Winkowski v. Winkowski, 

, 308 (Minn. 2023). We disagree.

       Our analysis in Winkowski did not alter the “real and substantial disability”

requirement to defeat mootness under the collateral consequences doctrine. Instead, our

discussion of the doctrine in Winkowski was directed at the insufficiency of the appellant’s

argument, not the insufficiency of the alleged consequences themselves. See 

 at 308–09

& n.8. Put differently, Winkowski simply discussed the established proposition that the

party invoking the collateral consequences doctrine bears the burden of persuasion while

effecting no change to the standard we apply when considering whether collateral

consequences may be presumed to result from a judgment.

       Because the parties do not dispute that the 180-day sentence could have an impact

on sentencing should Oberton be convicted of a felony offense in the future, Oberton has

satisfied the requirement of a “real and substantial disability,” consistent with our

conclusion in Jones, 

 n.1. We conclude that, under the collateral

consequences doctrine, this appeal is not moot because there remains a possibility that

adverse collateral legal consequences will inure to Oberton.

                                            II.

       Having decided Oberton’s appeal is not moot, next we revisit Tatum and affirm its

continued validity. In doing so, we restate our holding to clarify that the rule announced

in Blakely v. Washington, 

 (2004), which was issued after Tatum, is not

implicated in a district court’s sentencing decision when summarily imposing a sentence

for punitive direct contempt.


                                             8
       In Tatum, we explained that “[t]raditionally, the law of contempt in Minnesota has

been organized around two classifications—one judicially crafted and the other statutorily

mandated.” Tatum, 

. The first classification, as developed by our case

law, looks to whether the purpose of the contempt order was punitive or remedial. 

(citing Knajdek v. West, 

 (Minn. 1967)). Punitive, or “criminal,”

contempt orders generally seek to “vindicat[e] the court’s authority by punishing the

contemnor for past behavior.” 

 (citing Minn. State Bar Ass’n v. Divorce Assistance

Ass’n, Inc., 

 (Minn. 1976)). On the other hand, remedial, or “civil,”

contempt orders generally seek to “vindicat[e] the rights of a party by imposing a sanction

that will be removed upon compliance with a court order that has been defied.” 

 (citing

Minn. State Bar Ass’n, 

).

       The second classification of contempt is statutory and looks to the nature of the

conduct to distinguish between direct and constructive contempt. Direct contempt—the

type of contempt at issue in this case—occurs in the immediate view and presence of the

court and may arise from either: (1) disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward

a judge while holding court, which tends to interrupt the due course of a trial or other

judicial proceeding; or (2) a breach of the peace, boisterous conduct, or violent disturbance,

which tends to interrupt the business of the court. 

, subd. 2 (2022).

Constructive contempt is one that is not committed in the immediate presence of the court,

and of which the court has no personal knowledge. 

, subd. 3 (2022).

Direct contempt may be punished summarily, 

 (2022), as occurred in

this case, but constructive contempt may not. Tatum, 

.


                                              9
       The contempt statute includes two penalty provisions in 

 (2022)

and 

 (2022), but “[n]either penalty provision applies to direct

contempt, summarily sentenced, for punitive purposes.” Tatum, 

. In

such cases, the court’s power to impose a sentence derives from its “retain[ed] inherent

authority to punish direct contempt whether or not statutory authorization exists.” 

; see also In re Welfare of R.L.W., 

, 205–06 (Minn. 1976) (“Contempt

historically has been regarded as part of the court’s inherent power to punish summarily

offenses committed in its presence. . . . While [chapter] 588 declares the court’s power,

that contempt power exists independent of the statute. The power is essential to the

effectiveness of all other court powers.”).

       In Tatum, we noted that a district court’s inherent authority to summarily impose a

sentence for punitive direct contempt is bounded by three “clear limitations.” 

. First, district courts may not summarily impose a sentence in excess of six months

due to the attachment of jury trial rights under the federal constitution. 

 (citing Int’l

Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 

, 826–27 & n.2 (1994)).

Second, “appellate courts in this state retain their traditional power to review punitive

contempt orders for arbitrariness, capriciousness, and oppressiveness.”             Tatum,

.      And third, “the principle of comity recommends deference to

legislative judgments, especially in this area of law which so closely borders traditional

criminal statutes,” such that the statutory penalty provision for criminal contempt, 

, should set “the presumptive maximum sentence . . . as a matter of comity

and deference.” Tatum, 

. Accordingly, we established the rule that—


                                              10
consistent with the maximum sentence for statutory misdemeanor contempt—“a 90-day

sentence and a $700 fine should ordinarily be the maximum sentence imposed” for punitive

direct contempt. 

       Our use of the phrase “presumptive maximum sentence,” however, predated the

United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely, which clarified the constitutional

significance of a “presumptive sentence,” as well as our decisions applying the rule

announced in Blakely to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. See, e.g., State v. Shattuck,

, 141–42 (Minn. 2005). Because the rule announced in Blakely is not

implicated when direct contempt is summarily sentenced for punitive purposes under a

district court’s inherent authority, we restate our holding in Tatum as follows: Although

180 days is the maximum sentence allowed by law when direct contempt is summarily

sentenced for punitive purposes under the inherent authority of the district court, a district

court should, as a matter of comity to the Legislature, limit its sentence—consistent with

the maximum sentence for statutory misdemeanor contempt—to 90 days and a fine of

$1,000 unless the defendant’s conduct is extraordinary.4

       We also reaffirm that a district court’s inherent authority to summarily impose a

sentence for punitive direct contempt is bounded by the three “clear limitations” of jury



4
       We note that Tatum stated the ordinary maximum sentence to be applied as “a
90-day sentence and a $700 fine.” 

. Inasmuch as the Legislature has
raised the maximum fine for a misdemeanor to $1,000, we alter the maximum allowable
fine under the district court’s inherent authority to summarily punish direct contempt
accordingly. See 

, subd. 3 (2022). We also clarify that, like a statutory
misdemeanor, the ordinary maximum sentence in these circumstances may include a
sentence of up to 90 days, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. See 

                                             11
trial rights, appellate review, and comity toward legislative judgments.         See Tatum,

.

                                             III.

       Having affirmed the holding in Tatum and restated it using language that clarifies

the inapplicability of the rule announced in Blakely, we turn to Oberton’s argument that

Tatum requires a district court to make a finding of extraordinary conduct when direct

contempt is summarily punished with a 180-day sentence under the court’s inherent

authority. The interpretation of our case law involves a legal question that we review de

novo. State v. Robideau, 

 (Minn. 2011).

       In arguing that Tatum requires a district court to make a finding of extraordinary

conduct, Oberton focuses on the following language in our discussion of why a remand

was required in that case: “The district court should have an opportunity to justify a more

severe sentence for Tatum.” Tatum, 

. According to Oberton, this

language implicitly requires a district court to justify the imposition of a 180-day sentence,

which is the maximum sentence that may be summarily imposed. In contrast, the State

argues the language in question does not “mandate a particular way that a record must be

made” before direct contempt is summarily punished with a 180-day sentence under the

court’s inherent authority. Instead, the State contends that the court in Tatum was simply

providing the district court an opportunity to revisit the sentencing issue under the newly

clarified law.

       We need not decide whether Tatum requires a finding of extraordinary conduct

because, in the exercise of our supervisory power to ensure the fair administration of


                                             12
justice, we instead announce a new rule that is necessary to ensure effective appellate

review. Such an approach is consistent with the approach we adopted in State v. Scales,

 (Minn. 1994).

       In Scales, the appellant argued that under the Due Process Clause of the Minnesota

Constitution, he had a right to have his custodial interrogation recorded. 

. In support of his argument, the appellant cited State v. Robinson, 

,

224 n.5 (Minn. 1988), in which we observed that “recordation of all pre-statement

conversations would afford the reviewing court an objective record upon which to rule,

rather than one based upon self-serving or subjective assertions of the principals involved.”

In Scales, rather than deciding the due process issue, we invoked “our supervisory power

to insure the fair administration of justice” and announced a prospective rule that “all

custodial interrogation including any information about rights, any waiver of those rights,

and all questioning shall be electronically recorded where feasible and must be recorded

when questioning occurs at a place of detention.” 

.

       Consistent with Scales, and because summary punishment of direct contempt is a

serious exercise of judicial power, we invoke our supervisory power to ensure the fair

administration of justice and announce that when a district court determines that a person’s

contemptuous conduct is extraordinary, the court must make oral or written findings

describing the extraordinary conduct within 7 days of the direct contempt order so that an

appellate court is able to review the district court’s order for arbitrariness, capriciousness,

and oppressiveness. This rule is warranted for two reasons.




                                              13
       First, effective appellate review of a decision to summarily punish direct contempt

with the maximum 180-day sentence allowed by law necessitates findings describing the

extraordinary conduct. Where, as here, the standard of review is abuse of discretion, a

district court’s findings play an important role in allowing appellate courts to ensure that

the imposition of the maximum sentence allowed by law is, in fact, an exercise of that

discretion and not merely a result of courtroom emotion, arbitrariness, or caprice. A

decision to summarily punish direct contempt with the maximum 180-day sentence

allowed by law draws on the district court’s direct exposure to the person’s contemptuous

conduct, learned courtroom experience, and knowledge of the law in this state pertaining

to similar instances of contempt. Appellate courts are not well-situated to engage in that

comparative inquiry in the first instance based solely on the transcript of proceedings.

       Second, we recognize that the circumstances in which a district court summarily

punishes direct contempt with the maximum 180-day sentence allowed by law will vary

widely. At times, a district court might be able to make oral findings on the record

describing the extraordinary conduct that justified the maximum sentence allowed by law.

Doing so would suffice under the rule we announce today. More frequently, however,

circumstances may preclude the possibility or propriety of the district court making oral

findings in the face of extraordinarily contemptuous conduct, especially when it occurs

during large, busy court calendars. Consequently, the newly announced rule allows a

district court to file written findings describing the extraordinary conduct justifying a

sentence of between 90 and 180 days within 7 days of the direct contempt order so that an

appellate court can review the district court’s order for arbitrariness, capriciousness, and


                                            14
oppressiveness.5 We anticipate this additional time to file written findings will allow a

district court to ensure its decision is well-considered and not unduly influenced by the

charge of a heated courtroom interaction.

       If a district court fails to comply with the newly announced rule, the maximum

180-day sentence allowed by law must be reduced to a 90-day sentence, as a matter of

comity to the Legislature. Like the rule announced in Scales, the rule and remedy

announced here apply prospectively.

       Although we apply this rule and remedy prospectively, we conclude that under the

unique circumstances of this appeal, the interests of judicial economy and justice require

that on remand Oberton’s 180-day sentence should be vacated and a 90-day sentence

imposed. In reaching this conclusion, we note that remanding the case for further findings

is not practical here because the district court judge who sentenced Oberton has retired.

Further, removing the possibility that the 180-day sentence will affect Oberton’s criminal

history score will neither diminish the seriousness of Oberton’s conduct nor encourage

Oberton to commit similar contemptuous conduct in the future because Oberton served the

maximum sentence allowed by law for his contemptuous conduct.




5
        In a separate but similar context, Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.01,
subd. 2, fixes the time for a district court’s submission of certain written findings at 7 days
after the completion of a court trial. We are persuaded that this sets a reasonable timeline
for the submission of written findings under the present circumstances as well.

                                              15
                                      CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and

remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

       Reversed and remanded.



       HENNESY, J., not having been a member of the court at the time of submission,

took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.




                                             16