John R. Chambers, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. C3-97-924, Court of Appeals Unpublished, September 23, 1997.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

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

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C3-97-924

John R. Chambers, petitioner,

Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota Respondent.

Filed September 23, 1997

Affirmed

Lansing, Judge

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 7^th Street #101, Crookston, MN 56716 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Harten, Judge.

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

LANSING, 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.

F A C T S

A jury convicted John Chambers of second degree intentional murder. Chambers challenged his conviction on direct appeal and we affirmed. State v. Chambers, No. C3-92-2279 (Minn. App. Aug. 3, 1993). The supreme court accepted review and issued an opinion affirming the conviction. State v. Chambers, 507 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 1993). Chambers later filed a postconviction petition challenging his conviction and his sentence. The district court denied the petition and we affirmed the denial. State v. Chambers, No. C3-94-2240 (Minn. App. March 21, 1995).

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.

D E C I S I O N

A person who has been convicted of a crime may petition for postconviction relief if "the conviction obtained or the sentence or other disposition made violate[s] the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the state." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (1996). A hearing on a postconviction petition is required only when facts are alleged that, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to relief. State ex rel. Roy v. Tahash, 277 Minn. 238, 245, 152 N.W.2d 301, 306 (1967).

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.

Affirmed.