Melde v. State

• Decision Date: 15 June 2022
• Docket Number: A21-1651
• Parties: Cory Lee Melde, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Cory Lee Melde, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. A21-1651

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

June 15, 2022

Stearns County District Court File Nos. 73-CR-12-9968 73-CR-13-2033

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Wheelock Judge; and Cleary, Judge. ^[*]

ORDER OPINION

Lucinda E. Jesson Judge

BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:

1. In October 2012, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Cory Lee Melde with third-degree criminal sexual conduct^[1] following allegations that he forcibly penetrated his then-girlfriend without her consent. Later that month, the district court issued a domestic-abuse no-contact order prohibiting Melde from having contact with the complainant.

2. Despite this order, Melde called the complainant from the county jail on October 19, 2012. The state charged him with felony violation of a no-contact order.^[2] Melde then called the complainant two more times, on November 24 and 25, 2012, and the state charged him with two more counts of felony violation of a no-contact order.

3. After being found guilty of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct at trial, Melde pleaded guilty to all three no-contact-order-violation charges in exchange for the state agreeing to not charge him for a fourth phone call to the complainant. The district court sentenced Melde to a total term of 164 months in prison, including a term of 140 months for the criminal-sexual-conduct conviction and two consecutive one-year-and-one-day terms for two of the three no-contact-order-violation convictions.^[3]

4. In 2013, Melde appealed his criminal-sexual-conduct convictions and sentence. State v. Melde, No. A13-1373, 2014 WL 3558026, at *1 (Minn.App. 2014), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 24, 2014). We reversed one conviction for insufficient evidence but affirmed the other conviction and Melde's sentence. Id. at *4-6.

5. In June 2020, Melde filed a pro se motion that he styled as a motion to correct his sentences. In this motion, he challenged both his no-contact-order-violation convictions and sentences, and he sought relief on his criminal-sexual-conduct conviction in a later pro se filing.

6. The district court denied Melde's motion. First, the court concluded that Melde's motion concerning his criminal-sexual-conduct conviction was really a petition for postconviction relief that was statutorily time-barred because it was filed more than two years after the resolution of his direct appeal. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2020) (imposing two-year deadline for petitions for postconviction relief). Second, the court concluded that Melde's convictions and sentences for violating the no-contact order were lawful because each one was based on a separate incident. Finally, the court concluded that Melde's consecutive sentences were allowed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.

7. Melde appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing. He further urges us to review the pro se arguments that he made before the district court.

8. A purported motion to correct a sentence that requests relief beyond just the sentence is properly considered a petition for postconviction relief. Wayne v. State, 870 N.W.2d 389, 391-92 (Minn. 2015). We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief, and a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion. Morrow v. State, 886 N.W.2d 204, 206 (Minn. 2016). The district court may deny a petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing if the petition, files, and records "conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief." Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2020).

9. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively establishes that Melde is not entitled to relief on his motion to correct his sentences and his related request for postconviction relief. Melde argues that the court did not address his argument that consecutive sentencing "improperly aggravated and extended his prison time in light of the...