Kubrom v. State

• Decision Date: 06 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. A14–0823.,A14–0823.
• Citation: Kubrom v. State, 863 N.W.2d 88 (Minn. App. 2015)
• Parties: Robel Belay KUBROM, petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

863 N.W.2d 88

Robel Belay KUBROM, petitioner, Appellant

v.STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. A14–0823.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

April 6, 2015.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Lauermann, Assistant Public Defender, Veronica Surges Shacka, Assistant Public Defender, Shannon Callahan, Certified Student Attorney, St. Paul, MN, for appellant.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, Katie Lynch, Certified Student Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for the state.

Considered and decided by RODENBERG, Presiding Judge; CHUTICH, Judge; and SMITH, Judge.

OPINION

RODENBERG, Judge.

AppellantRobel Belay Kubrom challenges the district court's denial of his postconviction petition to amend his sentence after the district court added a mandatory conditional-release term to his bargained-for sentence that has now been fully served.We reverse and remand.

FACTS

On June 4, 2008, appellantRobel Belay Kubrom was charged with first-degree driving while impaired under Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 1(5), .24, subd. 1(2008), and driving after cancellation as inimical to public safety under Minn.Stat. § 171.24, subd. 5(1)(2008), for a May 17, 2008 driving incident.The complaint described each charge, and identified the statute(s) violated and the possible penalty.For count I, the driving-while-impaired charge, the penalty was described as “3–7 YEARS AND/OR $4,200–$14,000 PLUS A CONDITIONAL RELEASE TERM.”

A plea agreement was reached and, on July 11, 2008, appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree driving while impaired and was sentenced.¹The plea petition stated that “if [appellant] enter[s] a plea of guilty, the prosecutor will do the following ... 46 mo[.] commit concurrent” with another sentence and that the district court would “recommend[ ] boot camp” to the Minnesota Department of Corrections(DOC).It contained no reference to a mandatory conditional-release term but contained a reference to a mandatory sentence: “[I]f a minimum sentence is required by statute, the court may impose a sentence [of not less than] 36 months for this crime.”The number “36” was handwritten.Neither a presentence investigation nor a sentencing guidelines worksheet was ordered by or filed with the court.During the plea hearing, there was no mention of a mandatory conditional-release term.Neither did the district court's pronounced sentence contain such a term.

The district court committed appellant to the commissioner of corrections for 46 months, with 47 days of jail credit for time served.While appellant was serving his sentence, the district court twice modified his sentence to correct inaccuracies.²

On April 29, 2013, the district court amended appellant's sentence a third time, adding the five-year conditional-release term after the DOC sent a letter to the sentencing court on April 24, 2013, informing it that appellant's sentence “did not mention the five year conditional release period” required by Minn.Stat. § 169A.276, subd. 1(d)(2008).The DOC requested that the district court review the file and provide the DOC with an amended sentencing order including the conditional-release term.The district court did so without notice to appellant or a hearing.

Appellant petitioned the district court for postconviction relief, arguing that the district court erred in adding the five-year conditional-release term to his sentence and that appellant was entitled to either withdraw his plea or have his sentence amended to conform to the original agreement.The district court denied appellant's petition.This appeal followed.

ISSUE

Did a reference in the complaint to an unspecified conditional-release term sufficiently notify appellant of a statutorily mandated conditional-release term to permit an amendment of appellant's sentence to include the conditional-release term after appellant's bargained-for maximum sentence was executed?

ANALYSIS

The criminal penalty for first-degree driving while impaired includes “imprisonment for not more than seven years” and “the mandatory penalties described in section 169A.276.”Minn.Stat. § 169A.24, subd. 2(2008).The mandatory-penalty statute provides that the sentencing court“shall provide that after the person [convicted of first-degree driving while impaired] has been released from prison the commissioner [of corrections] shall place the person on conditional release for five years.”Minn.Stat. § 169A.276, subd. 1(d).It further provides that “[t]he commissioner [of corrections] shall impose any conditions of release that the commissioner deems appropriate” and permits the commissioner, “[i]f the person fails to comply with any condition of release,” to revoke the conditional release “and order the person to serve all or part of the remaining portion of the conditional release term in prison.”Id.

Appellant argues that, because he was not adequately informed of the mandatory five-year conditional-release term before he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, the district court improperly denied his postconviction petition.The state argues that the district court properly denied appellant's petition for postconviction relief because appellant was sufficiently notified of the conditional-release term by the reference to a conditional-release term in the complaint.

A person convicted of a crime, and claiming a violation of constitutional rights, may petition the district court in which the person was convicted to vacate a conviction or sentence “or make other disposition as may be appropriate” when a direct appeal is not available.Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(2014).A postconviction petition is proper to seek withdrawal of a guilty plea after the time for a direct appeal has expired.SeeJames v. State,699 N.W.2d 723, 727(Minn.2005)(stating that when a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing, the defendant must raise it in a petition for postconviction relief).

A district court's denial of a defendant's petition to withdraw a guilty plea will be reversed “only if the district court abused its discretion.”State v. Henthorne,637 N.W.2d 852, 854(Minn.App.2002), review denied(Minn. Mar. 27, 2002).Interpretation and enforcement of plea agreements are issues of law, which we review de novo.State v. Brown,606 N.W.2d 670, 674(Minn.2000).

To be valid, a guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.Brown v. State,449 N.W.2d 180, 182(Minn.1989).There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, but a guilty plea may be withdrawn “upon a timely motion and proof ... that withdrawal [of the guilty plea] is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.”Minn. R.Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1;State v. Theis,742 N.W.2d 643, 646(Minn.2007).When a guilty plea is not accurate, voluntary, or intelligent, a manifest injustice occurs.Theis,742 N.W.2d at 646;see alsoPerkins v. State,559 N.W.2d 678, 688(Minn.1997).To be intelligent, the guilty plea must be knowing and understanding to “insure that the defendant understands the charges, the rights being waived and the consequences of the guilty plea.”Brown,449 N.W.2d at 182.

A conditional-release term is a direct consequence of a defendant's guilty plea because it affects the maximum amount of prison time a defendant may serve.Henthorne,637 N.W.2d at 856.“While conditional release is mandatory and nonwaivable, it represents a significant modification to a criminal sanction” in cases where the term was not initially pronounced or part of a sentence.Martinek v. State,678 N.W.2d 714, 718(Minn.App.2004).

When a statute mandates a period of conditional release, any sentence that omits the conditional-release period is unauthorized.³State v. Humes,581 N.W.2d 317, 319(Minn.1998).An unauthorized sentence may be corrected without violating due process when a defendant“has notice that a correction is required and has not developed a crystallized expectation as to the finality of the sentence.”Martinek,678 N.W.2d at 718.However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that there is a due-process limitation on a district court's ability to modify a sentence.State v. Calmes,632 N.W.2d 641, 645(Minn.2001).To determine whether a sentence modification impermissibly alters a plea agreement, “courts look to what the parties to the plea bargain reasonably understood to be the terms of the agreement.”Brown,606 N.W.2d at 674(quotation omitted).

In Humes,the supreme court held that the plain language of the statute required that a conditional-release term “must be included in the sentence” for statutorily specified offenders and could not be waived.581 N.W.2d at 319.The supreme court concluded that “the district court simply made an error of law in failing to include the mandatory conditional release term” and that the district court had jurisdiction to modify the sentence to add the term.Id. at 320.

Six months after Humes,the supreme court decided State v. Garcia,582 N.W.2d 879(Minn.1998).In Garcia,the defendant had originally pleaded guilty to a lesser charge “in exchange for a sentence of 81 months.”Id. at 880.There was no mention of a conditional-release term “in the plea petition nor was it addressed at any of the hearings.”Id. at 880–81.The supreme court concluded that, while the district court has jurisdiction to correct a defendant's sentence to include the statutorily mandated conditional-release term, modifying the defendant's sentence to include a conditional-release term not included in the plea agreement entitles the defendant to elect to either withdraw his guilty plea or remain bound by the original plea agreement with the added conditional-release term.Id. at 881–82.Where a defendant's guilty plea contains an “unqualified promise [that] is unauthorized by law,”he“must be allowed to withdraw from the plea agreement if he so chooses.”Id. at 882;see alsoKochevar v. State,281 N.W.2d 680, 687(M...