may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. sec. 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
John R. Chambers, petitioner,
State of Minnesota Respondent.
Filed September 23, 1997
Polk County District Court
File No. KX911310
John R. Chambers, Box 55 - 161941, Stillwater, MN 55082 (appellant pro se)
Hubert H. Humphrey III, State Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)
Wayne H. Swanson, Polk County Attorney, Larry D. Orvik, Assistant County Attorney, 223 East 7th Street #101, Crookston, MN 56716 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Harten, Judge.
In an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief, John Chambers challenges the constitutionality of the Department of Corrections' work requirement and wage deduction policies. Because the postconviction remedy is only available for challenges to the validity of a conviction and sentencing, we affirm the denial of relief.
In this second petition for postconviction relief, Chambers appeals the district court's denial of his petition without a hearing, arguing that the Department of Corrections' work requirement violates the Thirteenth Amendment and the wage deduction policy violates the Fifth Amendment.
Chambers does not, in this postconviction proceeding, allege constitutional violations in his conviction or sentence. Instead he alleges the unconstitutionality of a prison work requirement and a wage withholding policy. Postconviction relief is not available as a remedy for these claims. Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692, 696 (Minn. 1997) (restricting postconviction remedy to claims relating to conviction or sentence and specifically excluding Department of Corrections' wage withholding policy as a basis for postconviction relief); see also Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277-78, 170 N.W.2d 101, 104 (1969) (the Postconviction Remedy Act was enacted to provide a postconviction remedy by which a defendant may attack the judgment of conviction). Rainer's holding is dispositive of Chambers' claims and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a hearing on the petition and the petition itself.