This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A03-505

 

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Vennie J. Williams,

Appellant.

 

 

Filed December 16, 2003

Affirmed

Robert H. Schumacher, Judge

 

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 02052933

 

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and

 

Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Donna J. Wolfson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

 

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

 

 

Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge; Toussaint, Chief Judge; and Shumaker, Judge.


U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

ROBERT H. SCHUMACHER, Judge

Vennie Jerome Williams appeals from his conviction of felony theft under Minn. Stat.  609.52, subd. 2(1) (2000). He argues the trial court's lack of findings on the value of the stolen watches requires that his conviction be reduced to misdemeanor theft. He also argues the trial court's amended findings of fact and conclusions of law do not rectify the problem because the order was not issued within seven days of the court's general finding of guilt. We affirm.

FACTS

In July 2002, Williams was charged with stealing watches valued at over $42,000. In November 2002, Williams agreed to waive his right to a jury trial and allowed the court to decide whether he was guilty of the crime charged based on the complaint and police reports. According to the agreement, if the court found Williams guilty he would be sentenced to one year and one day.

After trial, Williams waived his right to a speedy decision and requested the court delay its decision until the second week of January. In January 2003, the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law, finding "[Williams] committed felony theft of property in violation [of] Minn. Stat.  609.52, subd. 2(1) by intentionally taking property belonging to another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of the property." In February 2003, the court imposed the sentence of one year and one day consistent with attempted theft. In March 2003, the trial court issued amended findings of fact and conclusions of law that stated, "[Williams] committed felony theft of property in violation [of] Minn. Stat.  609.52, subd. 2(1) by intentionally taking two Rolex watches valued at over $35,000."

D E C I S I O N

Williams argues his conviction must be reduced to misdemeanor theft because the district court failed to make a finding on the value of the stolen watches. When a trial court fails to make specific findings required by Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, the proper approach is to remand to the trial court, not modification of the conviction. State v. Taylor, 427 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1988); see also State v. Thomas, 467 N.W.2d 324, 327 (Minn. App. 1991). This court in both Taylor and Thomas remanded because the district court did not make general or specific written findings. Taylor, 427 N.W.2d at 5; Thomas, 467 N.W.2d at 327. Here, unlike the circumstances in Taylor and Thomas, the trial court issued an amended order specifically finding the value of the watches exceeded $35,000. Because the trial court amended its findings of fact to specify the value of the watches, we conclude a remand is not required.

Williams argues the trial court's amended order does not conform to the time requirement of rule 26.01, which requires the court to issue written essential findings seven days after making a general finding of guilt. The time requirements of rule 26.01 are directory and not mandatory. Thomas, 467 N.W.2d at 326. We find no error.

Affirmed.