916 N.W.2d 674
Minn.2018Background
- Mark Jerome Johnson pleaded guilty to first-degree test-refusal in 2010 and again in 2015 after two separate DWI-related stops; he did not file direct appeals, so both convictions were final before 2016.
- In 2016 Johnson filed a consolidated postconviction petition arguing Birchfield (and Minnesota cases applying it) created a new constitutional rule rendering his test-refusal convictions invalid as applied.
- District courts summarily denied relief, concluding Birchfield announced a procedural rule that is not retroactive and alternatively that Johnson had waived challenges by pleading guilty.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide retroactivity and waiver issues.
- The court framed the legal question under Teague: whether the Birchfield rule is a new substantive rule (retroactive) or a procedural rule (not retroactive).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilty pleas waived Johnson's ability to challenge convictions as unconstitutional under Birchfield | Johnson: pleas do not waive a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge based on a statute unconstitutional as applied | State: guilty pleas waived Fourth Amendment–based collateral challenges | Held: No waiver — a conviction under a statute that is unconstitutional as applied attacks court's subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot be forfeited by plea |
| Whether Birchfield is a "new rule" for Teague purposes | Johnson: parties agree it is a new rule | State: agrees it is new; disputes effect | Held: Court assumes Birchfield is a new rule; proceeds to Teague exceptions |
| Whether the Birchfield rule is substantive (retroactive) or procedural (nonretroactive) | Johnson: Birchfield narrows statute and places a class of persons beyond State's power to punish (substantive) | State: Birchfield merely regulates police procedure and Fourth Amendment scope (procedural) | Held: Birchfield is substantive — it narrows who can be punished for test refusal and thus applies retroactively |
| Remedy / next steps after finding retroactivity | Johnson: convictions must be vacated if statute unconstitutional as applied | State: raises practical/application concerns and case-by-case nature | Held: Reversed and remanded — district courts must apply Birchfield case-by-case to determine whether each conviction was supported by a warrant or valid warrant exception (not automatic vacatur) |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ---- (2016) (breath tests permissible incident to arrest; warrant required for blood tests; criminalizing refusal of warrantless blood tests unconstitutional)
- State v. Trahan, 886 N.W.2d 216 (Minn. 2016) (applying Birchfield: warrantless blood test refusal cannot sustain conviction absent exigency)
- State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2016) (applying Birchfield to blood and urine tests; warrantless refusal unconstitutional as applied)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for retroactivity of new rules on collateral review)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (distinguishing substantive rules that alter range of conduct punished from procedural rules)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (new rule narrowing criminal statute is substantive and retroactive)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ---- (2016) (substantive rules can require case-by-case application yet still be retroactive)