1 STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A15

- 2056 Ramsey County Anderson , J.
Kim Thul Ouk , Appellant ,

vs. Filed: August 24 , 2016 Office of Appellate Courts State of Minnesota , Respondent

.

______________________ Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota ; and John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney , Laura Rosenthal , Assistant Ramsey County Attorney , Laura Garvey , Certified Student Attorney , Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent. Kim Thul Ouk, Rush City, Minnesota, pro se.

______________________ S Y L L A B U S
1. The postconviction court did not err by construing appellant’s motion to correct his sentence as a petition for postconviction relief.
2. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying relief because appellant’s postconviction petition is procedurally barred.
Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument

.2 O P I N I O N
ANDERSON , Justice.
In this fi r st

- degree murder case, appellant Kim Thul Ouk moved to correct his
sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27. 03 , subd. 9, alleging that the juvenile court failed to follow the proper adult

- certification procedures before referring him for adult prosecuti on
. After construing Ouk’s motion as a pet ition for postconviction relief, the postconviction

court summarily denied the petition as procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla , 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976)

. We affirm

. I.
In 1992 a Ramsey Cou nty g rand jury indicted Ouk on two counts of first

- degree felony murder , Minn. Stat. § 609 .185 (a) (3) ( 199 6 ) ; Minn. Stat. § 609.05 (2014) ; and two counts of attempt ed first

- degree felony murder , Minn. Stat. § 60 9.17 (2014); see Minn. Stat. §§ 609.185 (a) (3), 609.05

. At the time of the murders, Ouk was 15 years old. After a juvenile court certified Ouk for adult prosecution, a j ury found Ouk guilty on all four

counts . T he district court imposed two mandatory sentences of life imprisonment with the
po ssibilit y of release after 30 years for the first

- degree felony murder convictions and two
15

- year prison sentences for the attempted first

- degree felony murder convictions

. See
Minn. Stat. § § 244.05, subd. 4 (1992), 609.185 (a)(3) ; Minn . Sent. Guidelines II.G (1992). 1

1 As we held in Ouk v. State ( Ouk II ) , 847 N.W.2d 698 (2014), the Miller rule , which prohibits mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of release for juvenile offenders , is not applicable here because Ouk was sentenced to life with the possibility of release. Ouk II , 847 N.W.2d at 700

- 02 & n.7 (citing Miller v. Alabama , ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2475 (2012)).3

The district court ordered Ouk ’s sentences to be served consecutively. We affirmed Ouk’s
convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Ouk ( Ouk I ) , 516 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1994)

. 2 On August 21, 2 015, Ouk moved to correct his sentences unde r Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9. Ouk allege d that his sentences are void because , in the 1992 proceedings,
the juvenile court failed to follow the proper adult

- certification procedures before referring
him to adult court. See Minn. Stat. § 260.125 (19 92); Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 32.05 (1991) ; see also Vang v. State , 788 N.W.2d 11 1 , 11 5

- 1 7 (Minn. 2010)

. S pecifically, Ouk alleged that he waived the jurisdiction of the juvenile court , which is not permitted ; h is
waiver of his right to a certification hearing was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ; he did not receive sufficient notice of the first

- degree murder charges before certification ; the prosecution made insufficient filings ; and the juvenile court failed to make sufficient findings of fact.
After c onstru ing Ouk’s filing as a petition for postconviction relief, rather than a

mo tion under Rule 27.03, subd. 9 , the postconviction court summarily denied relief , i.e.,
denied relief without holding a n evidentiary hearing

. In doing so, t he postconviction court

2 The facts, evidence, and procedural history of this case are further described in our previous decisions in Ouk I , 516 N.W.2d at 182 , and Ouk II , 847 N.W.2d at 698

- 701

.4

held that Ouk’s petition is procedurally barred under the Knaffla rule. 3 See State v. Knaffla , 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737 , 741 (1976)

. This appeal followed.
I I. Ouk labeled his postconviction filing as a “Motion to Correct, Reduce, or Modify Sentence Not Authorize[ d ] by Law Pursu ant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03.” A court “ may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law. ” Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9. The postconviction court concluded, and the State arg ues, that Ouk’s filing should be construed as a petition for postconviction relief because it implicates more than just Ouk’s

sentence s
. W e have stated that “[a] postconviction court

. . . does not err in construing a Rule 27.03, subdivision 9 motion as a petition for postconviction relief where the appellant’s challenge ‘implicates more than simply his sentence.’ ” Johnson v. State , 877 N.W.2d 776,
779 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Coles , 862 N.W.2d 477, 482 (Minn. 2015)). In other words, a Rule 27.03, subd ivision 9 motion “ ‘ is limited to sentences, and the court’s authority under the rule is restricted to modifying a sentence. ’ ” Wayne v. State , 870 N.W.2d 389, 391 (Minn. 2015) (quoti ng Coles , 8 6 2 N.W.2d at 480 ). Here, Ouk’s arguments implicate more than simply his sentences. His claim that the juvenile court failed to follow the proper adult

- certification procedures before referring him to adult court

3 In the alternative, the postconviction court concluded that Ouk’s petition is untimely under the 2

- year postconviction statute of limitations, Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2014)

. Because we conclude that Ouk’s petition is procedurally barred under the Knaffla rule , we need not and do not consider this alternative ground

.5

also implicate s his underlying convictions. Consequently , the postconvict ion court did not

err by construing Ouk’s motion to correct his sentence as a petition for postconviction
relief.
I II

. We review a postconviction court’s denial of a petition for postconviction relief for
an abuse of discretion. Riley v. State , 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012). “ [ W ] e review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo

. . . and its findings of fact for clear

error
. . . . ” Greer v. State , 836 N.W.2d 520, 522 (Minn. 2013) (cit ation omitted)

. A postconviction petition may be summarily denied when the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief

. Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2014)

. Accordingly, a postconv iction court may summarily deny a postconviction petition that is procedurally barred

. Colbert v. State , 870 N.W.2d 616, 622 (Minn. 2015). In de ciding whether to summarily deny a petition, the postconviction court presume s the facts alleged in the petiti on to be true. Bobo v. State , 820 N.W.2d 511, 51 7 (Minn. 2012)

. Under the Knaffla rule, “[o] nce a direct appeal has been taken, all claims raised in that appeal, all claims known at the time of that appeal, and all claims that should have
been known at t he time of that appeal will not be considered in a subsequent petit ion for postconviction relief.” Leake v. State , 737 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn. 2007) (citing Knaffla , 309 Minn. at 252, 243 N.W.2d at 741 )

. At the time of Ouk’s direct appeal, the alleged ly defective procedures related to Ouk’s adult certification had already occurred. Thus, the Knaffla rule applies because these alleged defects were known or should have been known6

at the time of the direct appeal . Therefore, we hold that the postconvictio n court did not
abuse its discretion by summarily denying relief because Ouk’s petition is procedurally
barred under the Knaffla rule

. 4
Affirmed.

4 Ouk does not assert any exceptions to the Knaffla bar.