This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Sean Samuel Patterson,
Filed June 19, 2007
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 03083104
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Michael W. Kunkel,
Assistant Public Defender,
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Hudson, Judge.
On appeal from the denial of his postconviction petition, appellant argues that he should be able to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that his plea was not intelligently entered into because he was not adequately informed of the mandatory 10‑year conditional-release term that is part of his sentence. We affirm.
Appellant Sean Samuel Patterson was charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e)(i), (f)(i) (2002), and one count of kidnapping under Minn. Stat. § 609.25, subd. 1(2) (2002). Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(f)(i), in exchange for dismissal of the other charges and the state’s agreement not to seek an upward durational departure. The district court sentenced appellant to the agreed-on presumptive term of 144 months. As a condition of sentencing, the district court included a 10-year conditional-release term pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7 (2002).
Because the plea agreement did not include a conditional-release term, appellant challenged his sentence by appealing to this court and sought postconviction relief from the district court. We stayed the appeal, pending completion of the postconviction proceedings. The postconviction court denied appellant’s petition. This appeal follows.
postconviction court’s decision to deny relief is reviewed on an
abuse-of-discretion basis. Dukes v.
State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 251 (
A constitutionally valid
guilty plea “must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent (i.e., knowingly and
understandingly made).” State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (
“[A] plea may be validly
entered even if there is not strict compliance with” Minn. R. Crim. P. 15. State v. Christopherson, 644 N.W.2d
507, 511 (
The applicable conditional-release term statute provides:
Notwithstanding the statutory maximum sentence otherwise applicable to the offense or any provision of the sentencing guidelines, when a court sentences a person to prison for a violation of section 609.342, . . . the court shall provide that after the person has completed the sentence imposed, the commissioner of corrections shall place the person on conditional release. . . . If the person was convicted for a violation of one of those sections after a previous sex offense conviction . . . the person shall be placed on conditional release for ten years, minus the time the person served on supervised release.
Here, a pre-plea investigation, which recommended that the court consider a 10‑year conditional-release term as part of the sentence, was completed several months before the sentencing hearing. Appellant and his counsel received a copy of the report approximately four months before appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Appellant subsequently asked to waive completion of the pre-sentencing investigation (PSI) and agreed to be sentenced simultaneously with the entry of his plea. As a result, there was only one hearing in this matter. When the district court orally sentenced appellant to 144 months, it also imposed the 10-year conditional-release term. No objections were made by appellant or his counsel.
In his postconviction petition, appellant argued that his guilty plea was not intelligently entered into because he was unaware of the conditional-release term at the time of the plea agreement. The postconviction court, the same judge who sentenced appellant, determined that appellant’s knowledge of the conditional-release term could be imputed to him because (1) the term was recommended in the pre-plea investigation; (2) appellant and his counsel had the pre-plea investigation for several months before sentencing; (3) the fact that appellant waived his right to a PSI is proof that he was on notice of the conditional-release term and did not want any additional information prior to sentencing; (4) the 10-year conditional-release term was imposed by the district court at the sentencing hearing, as opposed to some later time; and (5) appellant or his counsel could have objected to it, but did not.
state argues that the facts of this case most closely resemble those in
district court denied
The supreme court
reversed this court, concluding that “
Here, appellant’s awareness of the likely imposition of the 10-year conditional-release term can be traced not only to the statute and well-established caselaw but also to the pre-plea investigation report, which he received four months before sentencing. Based on appellant’s failure to object to the conditional-release term at the sentencing hearing, we conclude that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s petition.