Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota
2016 Minn. LEXIS 490
| Minn. | 2016Background
- In 2007 Lane Weitzel pleaded guilty to failing to register as a predatory offender; judgment entered and he was placed on probation (discharged 2010). He did not appeal.
- In March 2014 Weitzel filed a postconviction petition under Minn. Stat. §590.01 to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the plea lacked an adequate factual basis.
- The State answered on the merits and did not assert the §590.01 subdivision 4(c) two‑year timeliness bar.
- The postconviction court dismissed the petition as untimely under §590.01, subd. 4(c), finding the claim “arose” earlier (outside the two‑year window) and alternatively that the claim lacked merit.
- The court of appeals affirmed, but recognized that a postconviction court may raise subdivision 4(c) sua sponte only after giving notice and an opportunity to be heard, and found the trial court erred in failing to provide such notice but deemed the error harmless.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding a postconviction court may raise the §590.01 time limits on its own motion to control its docket but must give notice and an opportunity to be heard; remand required because the trial court failed to provide those procedural protections.
Issues
| Issue | Weitzel's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postconviction court may consider §590.01, subd. 4(c) when the State forfeited the defense | Forfeiture by the State prevents the court from dismissing on timeliness; court must reach merits | Court should be able to raise timeliness to protect docket and promote finality | Court may raise subdivision 4(c) sua sponte to control its docket despite State forfeiture, but only with notice and opportunity to be heard |
| Whether §590.01, subd. 4(a)/(c) are jurisdictional | Not jurisdictional; Weitzel relied on State forfeiture to require merits review | Time limits are non‑jurisdictional statutes of limitation that can be asserted as defenses | Time limits are not jurisdictional; they are statutes of limitation that the State may forfeit, but the court retains discretion to consider them sua sponte |
| Procedural protections required if court raises timeliness sua sponte | Must require the court to treat forfeiture as precluding dismissal without State asserting it | Court must give notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissing sua sponte | Before dismissing on sua sponte timeliness grounds, court must give notice and an opportunity to be heard (Day v. McDonough standard adopted) |
| Remedy for failure to give notice and hearing | Remand for merits if State forfeited defense | If procedural protections lacking, remand for the opportunity to be heard on timeliness | Because trial court failed to give notice and hearing, case reversed and remanded for that process |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (court may raise AEDPA timeliness sua sponte but must give notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (courts’ authority to control their dockets and manage proceedings)
- Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. 2012) (§590.01 time limits are non‑jurisdictional and can be asserted as affirmative defenses; State forfeits them if untimely)
- Hooper v. State, 838 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 2013) (reaffirming non‑jurisdictional nature of §590.01 deadlines and consequences of State forfeiture)
- Rhodes v. State, 875 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 2016) (context for §590.01 time limits: enacted to address surge in stale postconviction petitions)