State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles, 862 N.W.2d 477

Coles, age 16 in 2003, faced delinquency charges including first-degree CSC and aggravated robbery; he and the State entered a plea agreement reducing charges and placing him on EJJ with a stayed 96-month aggregate sentence consisting of two 48-month terms, one for CSC (upward departure) and one for robbery (also an upward departure).
The district court accepted the plea, imposed EJJ status, and sentenced Coles per the plea agreement, citing the parties’ agreement and the victim’s youth as bases for the upward departures.
In 2005, Coles violated EJJ probation; the court revoked EJJ and imposed the consecutive 48-month sentences.
In 2012, Coles filed a pro se petition alleging the sentence was illegal; counsel later filed a supplemental petition invoking Rule 27.03, subd. 9, arguing improper departure justifications; the district court rejected as time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a).
The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the challenge implicated the plea and conviction and thus was time-barred under the postconviction statute; the supreme court granted review to resolve the proper vehicle and timing for the challenge.
The court ultimately held that Coles’ request is properly a petition for postconviction relief (not Rule 27.03) and is time-barred under § 590.01, subd. 4(a)

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper vehicle for challenge to sentence	Coles used Rule 27.03 motion seeking correction of sentence	State argues postconviction relief is required since the challenge implicates conviction	Postconviction relief is the proper vehicle
Timeliness of the petition under § 590.01	Rule 27.03 relief is timely	§ 590.01’s 2-year limit applies; petition filed in 2012 is late	Petition time-barred under § 590.01, subd. 4(a)
Whether the departure was improper and the sentence unauthorized	Departure grounds relied on the plea and age difference were improper	Grounds for departure supported by the plea and circumstances	The upward durational departure was improper; the sentence was unauthorized by law (if timely)

State v. Lewis, 656 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 2003) (when plea-based conditions affect sentence, broader relief may be possible)
State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141 (Minn. 2007) (sentence based on incorrect criminal history or similar error may be corrected; relates to plea agreement impacts)
State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 2002) (upward departures must be supported by substantial and compelling circumstances; plea alone is improper grounds for departure)
State v. Peterson, 329 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1983) (facts considered by legislature for offense severity cannot justify departure)
Johnson v. State, 801 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. 2011) (Rule 27.03 not applicable when challenge extends to conviction or plea; postconviction relief is proper)