State v. Christopherson, C1-01-1561.

• Decision Date: 28 May 2002
• Docket Number: No. C1-01-1561.,C1-01-1561.
• Citation: State v. Christopherson, 644 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. App. 2002)
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jerad Blake CHRISTOPHERSON, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

644 N.W.2d 507

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v.Jerad Blake CHRISTOPHERSON, Appellant.

No. C1-01-1561.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

May 28, 2002.

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, and Stephen N. Betcher, Goodhue County Attorney, Erin L.K. Schmickle, Assistant County Attorney, Red Wing, for respondent.

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Charles F. Clippert, Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Considered and decided by RANDALL, Presiding Judge, KLAPHAKE, Judge, and PORITSKY, Judge.

OPINION

PORITSKY, Judge.¹

Jerad Blake Christopherson appeals from an order denying his postconviction petition to withdraw his guilty plea to second-degree criminal sexual conduct, contending that the district court should not have imposed a five-year conditional-release term to his executed sentence after his probation was revoked.Christopherson argues that because the five-year conditional-release term was never mentioned as part of his stayed sentence during his original plea hearing, the addition of that term when his sentence was later executed renders his original plea invalid in that it was not accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.Christopherson also argues that the addition of the conditional-release term violates the terms of his plea agreement.Because the imposition of Christopherson's sentence was stayed at the original plea hearing, however, he did not need to be made aware of the conditional-release term in order to enter an accurate, voluntary, and intelligent plea.Furthermore, when the conditional-release term was ultimately added to his executed sentence, it did not violate Christopherson's plea agreement because he never agreed to a durational limit in his plea agreement with the state.Therefore, we affirm the district court's order.

FACTS

In May 1996, Jerad Christopherson was charged by complaint with three counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a)(1996), and three counts of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(a)(1996), stemming from four sexual encounters with a 12-year-old female.In September of that same year, Christopherson pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.At the plea hearing, the court stayed imposition of sentence and placed Christopherson on probation subject to a number of conditions, including one year in the county jail.

At the time the court received Christopherson's plea, the state informed the court that the sentencing guidelines did not require a presumptive commitment to imprisonment for Christopherson.Nevertheless, during questioning at the plea hearing, Christopherson's own lawyer asked him if he understood that the maximum sentence for the crime to which he was pleading guilty was 25 years in prison and/or a $30,000 fine.Christopherson indicated that he understood.Later in the hearing, the district court judge told Christopherson that if he violated the conditions on his probation, he could "end up going to prison for a substantial period of time."Other than this indirect reference, the district court never indicated the length of any stayed sentence, should Christopherson later violate the terms under which his sentence was stayed.No presentence investigation report was requested before the plea was accepted.

In late 1997, after repeated violations of his probation, revocation proceedings were initiated against Christopherson.At these proceedings, Christopherson admitted that he had committed three separate probation violations.During questioning, Christopherson stated that he believed that his original stayed sentence was 26 months.Later in the proceeding, the state requested that Christopherson be committed to the commissioner of corrections for 26 months.Despite these comments, there is no indication in the record from the earlier hearing at which Christopherson entered his plea that the original stayed sentence was for 26 months.The first time the 26-month sentence was mentioned was in a presentence investigation report ordered for the probation-revocation proceeding.Ultimately at that proceeding, the court revoked Christopherson's probation and at that time imposed a sentence: 26 months in prison and a five-year conditional-release period to begin upon Christopherson's release from prison.

In 2000, after he was released from prison, Christopherson again violated the terms of his conditional release and was returned to prison.In March 2001, Christopherson filed a postconviction petition, claiming that his plea was invalid because he was not informed that the conditional-release period would be added to his sentence of imprisonment if his probation were revoked.He requested that his conditional release be vacated, or in the alternative, that he be allowed to withdraw his plea.Christopherson claims that his plea was not accurate, voluntary, and intelligent because he did not know of the conditional-release period.He also claims that the imposition of the conditional-release period violates his plea agreement because it exceeds the 26-month prison sentence to which he claims he originally agreed.

The district court denied his petition, stating that there was no specific term of imprisonment mentioned in the plea agreement and that the addition of the conditional-release period was not contrary to the terms of that original agreement.The court found that without a specific mention of a durational limit when Christopherson entered his plea, his motivation to accept the plea agreement was the opportunity for probation and the stay of imposition of the underlying sentence.The court further found that because the maximum sentence for Christopherson's crime was 25 years, a five-year conditional-release period did not exceed that limit and could therefore be imposed.

On appeal, Christopherson argues that the district court's decision should be reversed because (1) his plea was invalid in that he was not made aware of the possibility of the conditional release at the time his plea was accepted, and (2) the addition of the conditional release violated the terms of the original plea agreement.Christopherson asks this court to remand this case to the district court so he can be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea or have the sentence modified.

ISSUES

I.Did the failure to inform Christopherson, at the time his plea was accepted, of the later possibility that he might be subject to conditional release make the plea not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent as a matter of law?

II.Did the addition of the conditional release term violate the original plea agreement?

ANALYSIS

Review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of the postconviction court.Hale v. State,566 N.W.2d 923, 926(Minn.1997).The postconviction court's decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.Id.Interpreting and enforcing plea agreements are issues of law, however, and they are reviewed de novo.State v. Brown,606 N.W.2d 670, 674(Minn.2000).

I.

Appellant's first argument is that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because it was not accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.Minn. R.Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1 allows for withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentencing when it is "necessary to correct a manifest injustice."The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that refusal to allow withdrawal amounts to a manifest injustice.Alanis v. State,583 N.W.2d 573, 577(Minn.1998).A manifest injustice occurs if the plea is not accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.Id.

The disposition Christopherson received was a stay of imposition of sentence.The statute that requires the conditional release reads:

Notwithstanding the statutory maximum sentence otherwise applicable to the offense or any provision of the sentencing guidelines, when a court sentences a person to prison for a violation of section 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, or 609.345, the court shall provide that after the person has completed the sentence imposed, the commissioner of corrections shall place the person on conditional release.

Minn.Stat. 609.109, subd. 7(a)(2000)(emphasis added).Because the imposition of the sentence was stayed, the court did not sentence Christopherson to prison at the time of the plea.Thus, under the plain language of the statute, the court was...