Ledden v. StateLedden v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Randall
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.On appeal from the order denying his postconviction petition challenging his 1996 conviction of first — and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argues that (1) the district court that tried him lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the statute under which he was convicted is void because it does not contain an enacting clause, and (2) the district court’s failure to respond to his notice and demand should be deemed an admission to its allegations, and that the judge violated her oath of office. Because we find no constitutional deficiency in appellant’s convictions, we affirm.
FACTS
In 1996, a jury found appellant Howard Ledden guilty of first — and second-degree criminal sexual conduct for the sexual abuse of his 13-year-old daughter and four-year-old stepdaughter. Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, and this court affirmed in State v. Ledden, No. C8-97-515, 1998 WL 74264 (Minn.App. Feb.24, 1998), review denied (Minn. April 30,1998).
On July 14, 1998, appellant petitioned for postconviction relief. His petition was denied, and appellant chose not to appeal the denial. After an unsuccessful petition for habeas corpus relief in federal court, appellant filed a motion for correction of sentence on March 21, 2001. The district court denied the motion, and this court affirmed the denial of relief in Ledden v. State, No. C4-01-1196, 2002 WL 171899 (Minn.App. Feb.5, 2002), review denied (Minn. April 16, 2002).
On December 24, 2003, appellant filed another motion for postconviction relief, alleging that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the laws as printed in the Minnesota statutes do not contain an enacting clause. The district court denied appellant’s motion. This appeal followed.
ISSUES
I. Do the statutes under which appellant was convicted contain enacting clauses that provide the Minnesota Courts with subject-matter jurisdiction?
II. Is the district court judge’s failure to respond to appellant’s notice and demand an admission to its allegations that the district court judge violated her oath of office?
ANALYSIS
Appellate courts “review a postcon-viction court’s findings to determine
I.
Appellant argues that the statutes under which he was convicted do not contain enacting clauses that provide the Minnesota Courts with subject-matter jurisdiction, and therefore his convictions violate the state constitution and are void. A person convicted of a crime is entitled to relief if he or she can prove that the conviction was obtained in violation of the state or federal constitutions. Minn.Stat. 590.01, subd. 1(1) (2002). This court must presume that Minnesota statutes are constitutional and exercise its power to declare a statute unconstitutional only with extreme caution. See generally State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318, 321 (Minn.1990). One who challenges the constitutional validity of a statute “must meet the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” Associated Builders Contractors v. Ventura, 610 N.W.2d 293, 299 (Minn.2000).
This exact issue was recently before the Colorado Court of Appeals in
People v. Washington,
969 P.2d 788 (Colo.Ct.App.1998). In
Washington,
the petitioner filed a motion for postconviction relief seeking to overturn his conviction on the basis that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional. 969 P.2d at 789. The petitioner argued that the statute, as it was published in the Colorado Revised Statutes, lacked the “enacting clause” required by
In compiling the Minnesota Statutes, the revisor of statutes is required to “assign appropriate chapter and section, numbers to [the new laws and amendments] and shall arrange them in proper order. After each section the office shall place a source note indicating the chapter and section of the session law from which the section was derived.” Minn.Stat. 3C.08, subd. 4 (2002). “Any volume of Minnesota Statutes, supplement to Minnesota Statutes, and Laws of Minnesota certified by the revisor according to section 3C.11, subdivision 1, is prima facie evidence of the statutes contained in it in all courts and proceedings.” Minn.Stat. 3C.13 (2002).
Appellant argues that his conviction is void because the statutes under which he was convicted do not contain enacting clauses as required by
It is . . . claimed by appellant that the law in question contained an enacting clause at the time it passed the legislature, and that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of such fact. The ruling was correct, for the fact itself was immaterial, for the reason that a bill, although it passes the legislature, never becomes a law, unless it be presented to the governor, pursuant to article 4, s 11, of the constitution. If the bill in question contained an enacting clause when it passed the legislature, it was never presented to the governor, but in place of it a bill was presented to and approved by him containing no enacting clause. It follows that chapter 250, Laws 1897, is void....
Id. at 214, 75 N.W. at 1118-19.
Here, appellant was convicted of first— and second-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. 609.342, subd. 1(a), 609.343, subd. 1(g) (1994). At the time of appellants conviction, both Minn. Stat. 609.342 and Minn.Stat. 609.343 were compiled from portions of ten legislative enactments.
3
Each of the acts creating
Appellant next contends that the statutes under which he was convicted are unconstitutional because the printed copies of the Minnesota Statutes do not contain the enacting clauses. In support of this proposition, appellant refers to the Sjoberg courts holding that “a statute without an enacting clause is void.” Sjoberg, 73 Minn, at 212, 75 N.W. at 1118. But appellant misinterprets the context in which the word “statute” is used. In Sjoberg, the constitutionality of chapter 250, Laws 1897 was being challenged. Because- chapter 250, Laws 1897 was not codified at the time the court addressed the issue, the court used the word “statute” in reference to the session laws. 4 Thus, appellants reliance on Sjoberg is misplaced.
Appellants argument also confuses the laws of Minnesota with the codified statutes. Although the Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, they are not the laws themselves. See Minn.Stat. 3C.13. The actual laws of Minnesota as passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, or enacted without signature or over veto, and filed with the secretary of state, are contained in the session laws, which do contain the required enacting clauses. See Minn.Stat. 3C.06 (2002). In contrast, the Minnesota Statutes are enacted laws that are codified, organized, and assembled by the revisor of statutes. See generally Minn.Stat. 3C.10 (2002). The laws are codified to provide the public with a usable collection of the laws of Minnesota. Minn.Stat. 3C.08, which sets forth the required contents of the Minnesota Statutes, does not require that the enacting clauses be républished in the Minnesota Statutes. To require that the enacting clause be republished in the Minnesota Statutes every time a law is passed or amended would lead to an absurd result because so many laws have been amended time and time again. See Minn.Stat. 645.17(1) (2002). Accordingly, we conclude that the omission of the enacting clauses from the Minnesota Statutes does not render the statutes unconstitutional, and there is no constitutional deficiency in appellants convictions.
II.
Appellant argues that the district court judge’s claimed “failure” to respond to appellant’s notice and demand is an admission to appellants allegations. Appellant asserts that by failing to respond to his notice and demand, the district court judge agreed, by tacit admission, that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Appellant therefore contends that by denying his motion for postconviction relief, while “admitting” the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the district court judge committed treason and violated her oath of office.
In support of his contention, appellant cites the Latin phrase
“Qui non negat fatetur,”
meaning “[h]e who does not deny, admits.”
Blacks Law Dictionary
1125 (5th ed.1979). That simplistic analysis based on a slogan is not even close to the law the way appellant uses it.. In civil cases, a party may serve requests for ad
Finally, appellant argues that the prosecutor lied by stating that appellant is proceeding pro se. We disagree. Appellant asserts that he is proceeding “in pro-pria persona” rather than “pro se” We can only note that these two Latin phrases mean essentially the same thing. In pro-pria persona is defined as “[i]n ones own proper person.” Blacks Law Dictionary 712 (5th ed.1979) (referencing pro se). Pro se is defined as “[f]or himself; in his own behalf; in person; appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself in court.” Blacks Law Dictionary 1099 (5th ed.1979). The official legal lexicon uses the term pro se to identify a party who does not retain a lawyer. Appellant may be “in propria persona” to himself, but he is “pro se” to us.
DECISION
The statutes under which appellant was convicted contain enacting clauses as required by
Affirmed.
Notes
. The court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the constitutionally mandated enacting clause must appear in the Colorado Revised Statutes. In rejecting the claim, the court stated that:
It would not be correct simply to add the phrase “Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado” at the beginning of each statutory section because, in many cases, the statute as published there is not in the same form as originally enacted by the General Assembly but is, as intended, a compilation of multiple legislative acts that also includes editing for clarity and consistency.
Washington,
969 P.2d at 789 (citing § 2-5-103, C.R.S.1998). Thus the court held that the policy underlying
.
. The ten legislative enactments for
. At the time the Sjoberg case was litigated, the most recent codification of the Minnesota laws was 1894. The Minnesota laws were not recodified until 1905.