may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Leonard J. Richards,
Filed December 17, 1996
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Forsberg, Judge *
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 87900689
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN 55101; Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, 2000-C Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for Respondent)
Leonard J. Richards, Post Office Box 10, Stillwater, MN 55082-0010 (Pro Se Appellant)
Considered and decided by Huspeni, Presiding Judge, Norton, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.
Richards appeals the district court's denial of his application for funds for services under Minn. Stat. § 611.21 (1994) and his request for appointed counsel. Because the district court correctly denied the appointment of counsel for this postconviction proceeding, but failed to make required findings for its denial of funds for services, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Richards requested appointment of counsel and applied for $5,000 in public funds in order to access legal materials for the preparation of a postconviction relief petition. His requests were summarily denied by the district court. Richards now appeals.
The district court erred, however, by failing to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law when it denied Richards's application for funds for services. Minn. Stat. § 611.21(c) (1994) provides that "the court shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law that state the basis" for denying the petitioner's request. (Emphasis added.) Without such findings, we are unable to take meaningful review of the decision and must remand to allow the district court to set forth its reasoning for the denial of Richards's application as required by Minn. Stat. § 611.21(c). Cf. State v. Hogetvedt, 488 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Minn. App. 1992) (remanding for new trial because of failure of district court to give reasons as mandated by Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 2(c) (requiring district court to state reasons for ordering use of physical restraints during trial)); State v. Taylor, 427 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. App. 1988) (remanding for lack of written findings mandated by Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 2 (requiring district court to make findings after bench trial)), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1988).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.