Case Name: STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Bhawesh PRABHUDAIL, Respondent
Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1999-11-16
Citations: 602 N.W.2d 413
Docket Number: No. C2-99-501
Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Bhawesh PRABHUDAIL, Respondent.
Judges: Considered and decided by SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge, RANDALL, Judge, and FOLEY, Judge.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 602
Pages: 413–420

Head Matter:
STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Bhawesh PRABHUDAIL, Respondent.
No. C2-99-501.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
Nov. 16, 1999.
Review Denied Jan. 18, 2000.
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney, Daniel P. Rogan, Special Assistant City Attorney, Minneapolis, MN (for appellant).
Stanley H. Nathanson, Richfield, MN (for respondent).
Considered and decided by SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge, RANDALL, Judge, and FOLEY, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI, § 10.

Opinion:
OPINION
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
Appellant State of Minnesota challenges the district court's continuation for dismissal of a solicitation charge, contending there were no justifying special circumstances. We reverse.
FACTS
The Minneapolis police arrested respondent Bhawesh Prabhudail after he allegedly offered a plain-clothes officer, acting as a prostitution decoy, money for sexual contact. • The state charged Prabhudail with misdemeanor solicitation of prostitution in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.324, subd. 3 (1998). At a pretrial hearing, Prabhudail's counsel informed the district court that, due to Prabhudail's immigration status, a conviction would be grounds for immediate deportation. Prabhudail's counsel requested the court to resolve the case by either a stay of adjudication or a continuance for dismissal. Over the prosecutor's objection, the district court continued the matter for one year conditioned upon no solicitation violations and a $100 payment for prosecution costs. The state appeals.
ISSUE
Is deportation a special circumstance justifying a continuance for dismissal?
ANALYSIS
A continuance for dismissal and a stay of adjudication are functionally equivalent and are appealable by the state in nonfelony cases, despite any inclusion of criminal sanctions. State v. Thoma, 569 N.W.2d 205, 207-208 (Minn.App.1997), aff'd mem., 571 N.W.2d 773 (Minn.1997). A district court may grant such an order over the prosecutor's objection using its inherent judicial power in cases involving special circumstances. State v. Krotzer, 548 N.W.2d 252, 254-55 (Minn.1996). The supreme court has explained that mere disagreement with the prosecutor does not constitute special circumstances, and that the inherent judicial authority should
be relied upon sparingly and only for the purpose of avoiding an injustice resulting from the prosecutor's clear abuse of discretion in the exercise of the charging function.
State v. Foss, 556 N.W.2d 540, 541 (Minn.1996).
Here, the district court, relying on Krotzer and Foss, determined that disruption of Prabhudail's family upon deportation for misdemeanor solicitation was a sufficiently adverse circumstance to warrant exercising the court's inherent authority. Any deportation in this case, however, does not result from a clear abuse of the prosecutor's discretion in the exercise of the charging function. See Alanis v. State, 583 N.W.2d 573, 574 (Minn.1998) (deportation is collateral consequence of criminal conviction). Since there is no evidence of any prosecutorial abuse of discretion, the possible deportation consequences are not justifying special circumstances. To hold otherwise would ignore the limitation that the supreme court laid out in Foss and has applied in similar circumstances. See State v. Vahabi, Nos. C7-95-1795, C9-95-1796, 1996 WL 940208 (Minn. Dec. 11, 1996) (order opinion reversing opinion of this court that affirmed deportation as special circumstance justifying stay of adjudication).
DECISION
Absent evidence of a prosecutor's clear abuse of discretion in the charging function, deportation consequences are not special circumstances justifying a continuance for dismissal.
Reversed.