Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota, A16-464

Background

In 1999 Darrell Dickerson pleaded guilty to multiple Hennepin and Ramsey County felonies; plea agreement and parties stated a total sentence of 440 months (presumptive consecutive guidelines).
At sentencing the court imposed individual terms adding up to 440 months and stated on the record that "the total of those sentences is 440 months" and eligibility/release periods; written commitment and warrant indicated "all counts consecutive."
Dickerson did not appeal. In 2015 he filed a pro se motion under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, arguing his sentences are unauthorized because the court never expressly used the word "consecutive."
The postconviction court treated the filing both as a motion to correct sentence (denied on the merits) and, alternatively, as a postconviction petition (denied as time‑barred). Dickerson appealed.
The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the record sufficiently "specified" consecutive sentences under Minn. Stat. § 609.15 and whether the two‑year postconviction limitation barred relief.

Issues

Issue	Dickerson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is "authorized" because the sentencing court did not expressly say "consecutive" on the record	Sentencing court never used the word "consecutive," so under § 609.15 sentences presumptively run concurrent and are unauthorized	The court’s on‑the‑record summary (total 440 months; minimum custody term; defendant’s own statement about 22 years) sufficiently specified consecutive sentences	The on‑the‑record pronouncement and defendant’s acknowledgement satisfied the statutory requirement; sentences authorized
Proper procedural vehicle: motion to correct sentence (Rule 27.03) vs. postconviction petition (§ 590.01)	Rule 27.03 motion was filed and should be treated as such	State urged recharacterization as postconviction petition, which would be time‑barred	Court held motion properly construed as a Rule 27.03 motion; reviewed alternatively as postconviction petition but resolved on Rule 27.03 merits
If recharacterized, whether the petition is time‑barred under the two‑year statute of limitations	The two‑year bar is unconstitutional as violating separation of powers	State relied on statute and safe‑harbor timing rules to bar late petitions	Court noted later Minnesota Supreme Court decision on separation‑of‑powers but avoided deciding it here because Rule 27.03 merits disposed of the case; alternatively held petition would be time‑barred
Other sentencing challenges (Blakely/upward departure)	Claimed guideline departures and Blakely violation	Sentences were within 1998 guidelines; no upward departure	Court rejected these claims as meritless

Key Cases Cited

State v. Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477 (Minn. 2015) (distinguishes Rule 27.03 sentence corrections from postconviction petitions)
State v. Schnagl, 859 N.W.2d 297 (Minn. 2015) (Rule 27.03 permits correction of sentences not authorized by law)
State v. Rasinski, 527 N.W.2d 593 (Minn. App. 1995) (failure to specify concurrent or consecutive on record requires concurrent terms)
Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2016) (Rule 27.03 may be proper where relief does not affect underlying conviction)
Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (court must notify pro se litigant before recharacterizing a filing that could affect later filings)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (jury‑finding requirement for certain sentence enhancements)