Opinion ID: 2321831
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Petition for Post-Conviction Review

Text: [¶ 10] The only remaining possible jurisdictional basis for Chesnel's motion is if we treat it as a petition for post-conviction review. As we will explain, this avenue is precluded because Chesnel failed to include his challenge to the Department's actions in his earlier petition seeking post-conviction review. [¶ 11] A person seeking post-conviction review is required by statute to raise all possible grounds for relief in a single action. See 15 M.R.S. § 2128(3). [1] Issues not raised in that single, properly filed petition are deemed waived unless to do so would be unconstitutional or the court determines that the ground could not reasonably have been raised in an earlier action. Id. [¶ 12] At the time that Chesnel filed his motion challenging the Department's collection of fines, he had already filed his petition for post-conviction review. In that petition, he did not challenge the Department's withdrawal of funds from his account, and he has shown no good reason why he could not have raised the issue at that time. See id. Indeed, Chesnel's August 2008 letter to the court demonstrates that he was aware of the Department's collection of funds before he filed his post-conviction review petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Because his petition for post-conviction review failed to raise the issue that he subsequently asserted in his motion, Chesnel waived review of the issue. See id. [¶ 13] Chesnel's motion was also ineffective as a petition for post-conviction review because it was not filed before the statutory deadline. The Legislature has imposed a one-year limitation period on post-conviction review actions that runs from the latest of three events, two of which could be applicable here: A. The date of final disposition of the direct appeal from the underlying criminal judgment or the expiration of the time for seeking the appeal; [or] .... C. The date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Id. § 2128(5). The judgments of conviction were entered on July 8, 2008, and the period for seeking a direct appeal from either conviction expired on July 29, 2008. See M.R.App. P. 2(b)(2)(A). By August 2008, Chesnel had indicated to the court in correspondence that he did not believe money should be collected from his prison account to pay for court fines. He did not file his motion to challenge that withholding until August 12, 2010more than a year after he discovered the Department's collection actions. Chesnel's motion does not, therefore, constitute a timely filed petition for post-conviction review. See 15 M.R.S. § 2128(5)(A), (C).