Minnesota Lawyer
Criminal
Postconviction Relief
Timeliness
In 2008, petitioner was convicted of aiding and abetting first degree murder, and the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and upheld the District Court’s denial of the two postconviction petitions filed by petitioner while his direct appeal was pending. In 2012, petitioner filed a third postconviction petition alleging that three of the State’s witnesses provided false testimony during the jury trial. The District Court initially summarily denied the petition, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing and subsequently denied the petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2020, petitioner filed his fourth postconviction petition alleging a claim of newly discovered evidence. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the petition, finding that none of the evidence presented by petitioner qualified under the newly discovered evidence exception in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4. Petitioner appealed.
The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that appellant’s fourth petition for postconviction relief was untimely. Affirmed.
A21-1292 Caldwell v. State (Hennepin County)
Sentencing
Conditional Release
While civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program (MSOP), defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault of a secure treatment facility employee (demonstrable bodily harm) under Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 3a(b)(1), for striking an MSOP security counselor in the head. Defendant challenged the District Court’s imposition of a mandatory 5-year conditional release term on equal protection grounds. Specifically, defendant complains that Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 3a(e), requires the District Court to impose different sentences for the same conduct based on the defendant’s civil commitment status. Subdivision 3a(e) requires a 5-year conditional release term for a defendant convicted under § 609.2231, subd. 3a(b)(1), for assaulting a secure treatment facility employee while civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) under § 253D.07. The mandatory 5-year conditional release term under subdivision 3a(e), does not, however, apply to a defendant convicted under § 609.2231, subd. 3a(c)(1), for assaulting a secure treatment facility employee while civilly committed as mentally ill and dangerous (MID) under § 253B.18. The Court of Appeals determined that defendants civilly committed as SDP and convicted under § 609.2231, subd. 3a(b), are not similarly situated to defendants civilly committed as MID and convicted under § 609.2231, subd. 3a(c), and therefore affirmed the dismissal of defendant’s request for post-conviction relief.
The Supreme Court held that the mandatory conditional release period required by Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 3a(e), for persons who are civilly committed as sexually dangerous and convicted of fourth-degree assault of a secure treatment facility employee under § 609.2231, subd. 3a(b)(1), does not violate the guarantees of equal protection under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Affirmed.
A20-0758 State v. Lee (Court of Appeals)
