Sanchez v. State
2012 Minn. LEXIS 301
| Minn. | 2012Background
- Sanchez was convicted of first-degree possession of a controlled substance after a stipulate-facts bench trial; sentenced to 98 months, but execution stayed pending appeal.
- Conviction became final; arrest in August 2002 for possession of >25 grams of cocaine; suppression motion denied and appeal not perfected due to transcript-financing issues.
- Court of Appeals dismissed appeal in 2004 for lack of a transcript/financial arrangements but allowed a possible reinstatement motion if good cause and transcript arrangements were shown; motion to reinstate denied.
- July 6, 2004, Sanchez was told his appeal had not been perfected; Sanchez fled to Mexico after discussing with counsel; bench warrant issued for his arrest.
- Sanchez remained in Mexico for over 3 years; returned to the U.S. in 2008 and learned from SPDO that his appeal had never been perfected.
- In March 2009 Sanchez filed a petition for postconviction relief asserting Fourth and Sixth Amendment claims and an interests-of-justice (I-O-J) exception under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5); petition deemed untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 590.01, subd. 4(c) applies to the 4(b)(5) I-O-J exception | Sanchez contends 4(c) should not bar I-O-J when pre-conviction error occurred over 2 years earlier | Court should apply 4(c) to all 4(b) exceptions, including 4(b)(5) | 4(c) applies to 4(b)(5) I-O-J claim |
| When a 4(b)(5) I-O-J claim arises for accrual purposes | Sanchez argues arising date is April 16, 2008 (actual knowledge of non-perfected appeal) | Accrual is objective; arises when petitioner knew or should have known of the claim, here July 6, 2004 | Claim arises when petitioner knew or should have known; July 6, 2004 |
| Whether equitable tolling can revive an untimely petition | Seeks tolling under Holland/related doctrine due to attorney misconduct and other circumstances | Even if tolling is possible, Sanchez did not meet the high standard for tolling; no state actor impeded him | Equitable tolling not available to revive; petition remains untimely |
| Constitutionality of § 590.01, subd. 4 as applied and separation of powers | Time limits usurp judicial authority and violate separation of powers | Legislature appropriately sets procedural time limits; does not intrude on judicial power | Statute not unconstitutional; separation-of-powers challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickert v. State, 795 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 2011) (petition invoking 4(b)4 must be filed within 2 years of the claim arising)
- Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (statute 4(b)4 remains plain and unambiguous; governs analysis of I-O-J)
- D.M.S. v. Barber, 645 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 2002) (objective 'knew or should have known' accrual standard applied to limitations)
- Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419 (Minn. 1975) (fraudulent concealment tolling requires external concealment; ignorance not tolling absent concealment)
- Stutelberg v. State, 741 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 2007) (context for timely postconviction review; not directly addressing 4(c))
- Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. 2012) (4(c) not jurisdictional; constitutional challenges to time limits rejected)