This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A04-2497

 

 

Richard Thomas Ronquist,

petitioner,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed July 12, 2005

Affirmed
Forsberg, Judge*

 

Ramsey County District Court

File No. K6-96-2829

 

Richard Thomas Ronquist, OID 129967, MCF-Stillwater, 970 Pickett Street, Bayport, MN  55003-1490 (pro se appellant)

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN  55101-2134; and

 

Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)

 

            Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge, Willis, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

FORSBERG, Judge

            Appellant Richard Thomas Ronquist challenges the district court’s order denying his postconviction petition for reduction in his sentence.  Because appellant’s conviction and sentence were final in 1999, before the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000) and Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), we affirm.

D E C I S I O N

            “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a judgment which carries a presumption of regularity and which, therefore, cannot be lightly set aside.”  Pederson v. State, 649 N.W.2d 161, 163 (Minn. 2002).  The postconviction court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.  Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 251 (Minn. 2001).

            A defendant is entitled to the benefit of a new federal rule of criminal law or procedure that is announced while his or her case is pending on direct review.  O’Meara v. State, 679 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Minn. 2004).  A case is pending “until such time as the availability of direct appeal has been exhausted, the time for a petition for certiorari has elapsed or a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has been filed and finally denied.”  Id.  Appellant’s conviction and sentence became final on October 20, 1999, before the release of the Apprendi decision in 2000.

            This court has previously determined that both Apprendi and Blakely announced new rules of constitutional law that are not subject to retroactive application on collateral review.  State v. Petschl, 692 N.W.2d 463, 471-72 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Jan. 20, 2005).  Because appellant exhausted his direct appeal before Apprendi and Blakely were decided, the district court did not err by denying his postconviction petition for a reduction in sentence.  We therefore affirm.

            Affirmed.