This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

CX-96-1803

Brad R. Stevens, petitioner,

Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,

Respondent.

Filed April 8, 1997

Affirmed

Crippen, Judge

Martin County District Court

File No. K892350

Brad R. Stevens, Box 55 - 147314, Stillwater, MN 55082 (Appellant Pro Se)

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, State Attorney General, Paul R. Kempainen, Assistant Attorney General, Suite 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and

Terry W. Viesselman, Martin County Attorney, Suite 130, 923 North State Street, Fairmont, MN 56031 (for Respondent)

Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

CRIPPEN, Judge

In these postconviction proceedings, appellant Brad Stevens seeks vacation of two sexual assault convictions on the theory that he suffered double jeopardy after imprisonment when his wages were applied in part to reimburse the state for the cost of his incarceration. We affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's petition.

FACTS

In 1993, appellant began serving a prison sentence for two sexual conduct crimes committed in 1991. In prison, appellant began employment with MINNCOR Industries, an organizational division of the Minnesota Department of Corrections under Minn. Stat. § 243.88, subd. 2 (1996). In 1994, the Commissioner of Corrections started making deductions from appellant's wages under Minn. Stat. § 243.23 in order to pay all or part of the cost of his incarceration.

The postconviction court dismissed appellant's petition to vacate his convictions, holding that he needed to bring a separate proceeding in order to challenge the constitutionality of the inmate-work statutes. The court also held that notwithstanding the improper forum, petitioner's constitutional right to be free from multiple punishments was not violated. On appeal, the state asks that the trial court's order be affirmed and that we strike several affidavits that were submitted to this court but were not part of the original trial or postconviction hearing.

D E C I S I O N

Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (1996), governs postconviction relief. The statute permits a request for relief from the issuing court on its judgment of conviction and its sentence or other disposition in the case, for a person who claims that the "conviction obtained or the sentence or other disposition made" violated the person's rights under the federal or state constitutions or statutes. Id; State ex rel. Gray v. Tahash, 279 Minn. 248, 250, 156 N.W.2d 228, 229 (1968) (noting that a postconviction proceeding constitutes a "collateral attack on a judgment" that carries a presumption of regularity, which "cannot be lightly set aside."). Appellant does not claim that the sentencing court's judgments or any part of them violated the Minnesota or United States Constitutions. Instead, appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Commissioner of Corrections' decision to deduct a percentage of his wages pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 243.23 (1996). As such, his petition did not fall under the statutorily defined claims permitted under § 590.01. As the postconviction court noted, nothing prevents appellant from bringing other proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 243.23.

Because appellant selected an improper forum in which to challenge the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 243.23, we reach neither the merits of his claims nor the state's question on appellant's submission of affidavits to this court.

Affirmed.