Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota, 870 N.W.2d 389

Michael Wayne was convicted in 1987 of first-degree murder while committing criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to life in prison; his direct appeal and initial postconviction petition were resolved in Wayne I.
Wayne subsequently filed multiple postconviction petitions (totaling eight petitions including the present one), none of which granted relief.
In November 2014 Wayne filed a "Motion for Correction of Sentence" under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, arguing the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on a lesser-included offense (criminal sexual conduct), which he said made his sentence unauthorized by law.
The postconviction court treated the motion as a petition for postconviction relief because the claim implicated the validity of the conviction, not merely the sentence, and denied it as time-barred under the 2-year postconviction statute of limitations and the transitional deadline (filed after August 1, 2007).
Wayne appealed; the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether the motion was properly characterized as postconviction relief and whether denial as untimely was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Wayne's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 27.03, subd. 9 motion can be used to challenge instructional error that affected length of sentence	The instructional error produced a sentence "not authorized by law," so Rule 27.03(9) permits correction at any time	Rule 27.03 is limited to sentences; a claim attacking the conviction's validity must proceed as postconviction relief	Court held the motion implicated more than the sentence and properly was treated as a postconviction petition
Whether the postconviction court erred by denying the petition as untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01	Wayne did not invoke exceptions; argued relief was available under Rule 27.03 labeling	The petition was filed well after the applicable deadline (August 1, 2007) and no tolling/exception was claimed	Court held denial for untimeliness was not an abuse of discretion

Johnson v. State, 801 N.W.2d 173 (2011) (Rule 27.03 cannot be used to circumvent postconviction procedure for challenging convictions)
State v. Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477 (2015) (Rule 27.03 authority is limited to modifying sentences)
Greer v. State, 836 N.W.2d 520 (2013) (denial of postconviction relief reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Berkovitz v. State, 826 N.W.2d 203 (2013) (conviction becomes final 90 days after direct appeal decision)
Wayne v. State (Wayne I), 448 N.W.2d 54 (1989) (underlying facts and disposition of direct appeal and initial postconviction petition)