State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Politano
A16-923
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Politano pleaded guilty in 2011 to failing to register as a predatory offender; he did not admit he had been assigned risk level III at the time of the offense.
- After plea, the court imposed a mandatory 10-year conditional-release term under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5a (2008); Politano objected but did not withdraw his plea.
- Politano filed a postconviction petition in 2012 arguing the conditional-release term made his plea involuntary; the petition was denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In 2016, after State v. Her, Politano moved under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03 to correct an unlawful sentence, arguing the 10-year term required a jury finding (or admission) that he was risk level III.
- The district court treated the motion as a time‑barred postconviction petition and denied relief; Politano appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Politano's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Politano’s challenge to the conditional‑release term was properly brought under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03 (sentence correction) rather than as a postconviction petition | The motion attacked only the legality of the sentence term (not the plea or conviction), so rule 27.03 applies and the two‑year postconviction statute does not bar it | The motion should be treated as a postconviction petition subject to the two‑year limitations period | Court: Motion properly filed under rule 27.03; time limit for postconviction petitions does not apply |
| Whether State v. Her announced a retroactive rule applicable to collateral sentence challenges, permitting relief from a conditional‑release term imposed without a jury finding of risk level III | Her is a clarification/predictable extension of existing Apprendi/Blakely doctrine, so it applies retroactively to Politano’s collateral sentence challenge | Her does not apply retroactively on collateral review because it rests on Blakely, which Houston held was not retroactive to convictions final when Blakely was decided | Court: Her is not a new rule but clarifies Apprendi’s prior‑conviction exception and thus applies retroactively to Politano’s challenge |
| Whether imposition of a 10‑year conditional‑release term without a jury finding or admission of risk level III violates the Sixth Amendment | Such a fact (risk level III) increases the statutory maximum and must be admitted or found by a jury under Apprendi/Blakely | State contended Her’s rule should not be available collaterally or that the issue was time‑barred | Court: Consistent with Her, the conditional‑release term imposed without a jury finding/admission was unauthorized; reversal and remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (establishes that any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be admitted or found by a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (clarifies statutory maximum concept for Apprendi purposes)
- State v. Her, 862 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 2015) (held a risk‑level III finding must be admitted or found by a jury before imposing a 10‑year conditional‑release term)
- State v. Houston, 702 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 2005) (discusses retroactivity of Blakely and watershed rules)
- Reynolds v. State, 874 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. App. 2016) (treated sentence‑term challenges under rule 27.03 rather than time‑barred postconviction petitions)
- State v. Jones, 659 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 2003) (treated conditional‑release terms as part of the sentence for Apprendi/Blakely analysis)