Rickert v. State
2011 Minn. LEXIS 119
| Minn. | 2011Background
- Rickert pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct in August 2006 and was sentenced to 144 months plus a 10-year conditional release under § 609.3455, subd. 6.
- Rickert did not file a direct appeal; the 10-year conditional release term was imposed as part of the sentence.
- Transcript of the plea/sentencing was not obtained by SPDO until August 14, 2008, four days before the two-year postconviction deadline expired.
- Rickert sought a two-month extension to file a postconviction petition, which the district court granted, based on the interests-of-justice extension in § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5).
- Rickert filed a postconviction petition arguing Blakely v. Washington violated his sentence; the postconviction court denied as untimely, and the court of appeals reversed on Blakely grounds and remanded for fact-finding.
- The supreme court reversed the court of appeals, held the petition timely under § 590.01,4(b)(5) and that Blakely was not violated, reinstating the district court's 10-year conditional release term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Rickert's petition time-barred after the extension? | Rickert contends the petition falls within the interests-of-justice extension. | State argues no timely petition under § 590.01,4(a) and that 4(b) exceptions do not apply. | Petition timely under 4(b)(5) and 4(c); court may hear merits. |
| Does Blakely apply to impose the 10-year conditional release here? | Rickert claims Blakely requires extra fact-finding for post-2005 conduct not admitted by plea. | No Blakely violation because plea admitted acts and § 609.3455, subd. 6, mandates the term after August 1, 2005. | Blakely does not apply; 10-year term automatically applies. |
| Does Minnesota Constitution guarantee one unlimited substantive review of a conviction? | Rickert asserts a constitutional right to one full substantive review regardless of procedural limits. | State contends no such unlimited right exists under the Minnesota or U.S. constitutions. | No unlimited right; existing direct appeal or postconviction framework suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roby v. State, 787 N.W.2d 186 (Minn. 2010) (pleading requirements to invoke § 590.01(4)(b) extension)
- Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (interests-of-justice factors for § 590.01(4)(b)(5))
- DeRosier, 719 N.W.2d 900 (Minn. 2006) (Blakely-like issues regarding factual basis for sentencing)
- Bourke, 718 N.W.2d 922 (Minn. 2006) (timeliness and procedural avenues for postconviction relief)
- Deegan v. State, 711 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 2006) (scope of postconviction review; right to counsel context)
- Spann v. State, 704 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 2005) (due process and rights to appeal; waiver context)
- McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1894) (no constitutional right to appellate review)
- District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (U.S. 1937) (due process does not guarantee the right to appeal)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (no constitutional requirement for appellate review)