Court Opinion

ID: 9670244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:17:22.93221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.336396
License: Public Domain

MULALLY, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I respectfully dissent in part and concur in part.
On April 14, 1977, petitioner pleaded guilty to kidnapping and criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. He was sentenced on May 18,1977 to consecutive indeterminate terms of 0-20 and 0-40 years.
A petition for post-conviction relief was filed July 24,1986, an amended petition for post-conviction relief was filed October 21, 1986, and both petitions were heard on March 6, 1987.
In his amended petition appellant alleged the sentence imposed was contrary to law, and at the time of entering the guilty pleas he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
The trial court heard arguments on the state’s affirmative defense of abuse of process. The court found that the petition and amended petition for post-conviction relief alleged no colorable claim of innocence, demonstrated no significant miscarriage of justice or alleged any undue hardship by petitioner which would have prevented him from presenting these claims at an earlier date.
That by inexcusably delaying over nine years since conviction and sentence before presenting the allegation in the petition and amended petition for post-conviction relief, petitioner had waited until the occurrence of an event which he believed would prevent successful reprosecution. The event is the loss of memory of the state’s witnesses after a ten year period and the difficulty by the state in ascertaining the whereabouts or availability of its witnesses.
The court found the state had proven its affirmative defense of abuse of process by petitioner, pursuant to Kost v. State, 356 N.W.2d 680 (Minn.1984) and Robinson v. State, 366 N.W.2d 306 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), and dismissed the petition and amended petition without further evidentiary hearing.
As the trial court points out, there was no justification for the delay in bringing this matter before the court. Appellant was not unaware of the judicial process. Over the past nine years he has filed a total of 10 legal proceedings in state and federal courts seeking various forms of relief. Except for that which was filed in January, 1982, but withdrawn by appellant prior to hearing, none was a petition for post-conviction relief.
The trial court was correct in finding that the state had proved that appellant deliberately and inexcusably withheld the filing of a petition for post-conviction relief until he believed that by lapse of time his successful reprosecution might be prevented.
In addition, here as in Kost, the existing record conclusively shows that there is not the slightest likelihood that appellant would prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Kost, 356 N.W. 2d at 682-83. The claim is clearly refuted by the transcript of appellant’s guilty plea proceeding. Appellant committed an abuse of process, the trial court was not required to proceed further and, except as to modification of sentence, appellant is not entitled to relief.
As a matter of law, appellant's sentence was incorrect in that it exceeds 40 years, and it must be reduced to a maximum term of 40 years.