Opinion
A22-0582
08-16-2022
Ibrahim Ibssa Mohammed, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-19-14938
Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Wheelock, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Lucinda E. Jesson Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Ibrahim Ibssa Mohammed pleaded guilty to first-degree assault, and the district court sentenced him to an executed term of 98 months in prison, the presumptive sentence given the severity level of the offense and Mohammed's criminal history. Mohammed appealed but then stayed his appeal to pursue postconviction relief.
2. In December 2021, Mohammed petitioned for postconviction relief, contending that the postconviction court should resentence him-allowing him to be released from custody-because his sentence exaggerated the criminality of his actions. This was the case, he alleged, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and his particular vulnerability to the virus while incarcerated. Mohammed did not claim that his sentence was unlawful. Respondent State of Minnesota opposed Mohammed's petition.
3. The postconviction court denied Mohammed's petition. The court reasoned that Mohammed's "health concerns do not make his sentence illegal." Accordingly, the court concluded that it lacked authority to resentence Mohammed under Minnesota Statute section 590.01, subdivision 1 (2020) (the postconviction statute).
4. Mohammed appeals, arguing that the existence of the virus, and his particular vulnerability to it, "constitute substantial and compelling reasons to allow sentence modification."
Mohammed does not argue that his sentence exaggerated the criminality of his actions on appeal.
5. We review the postconviction court's interpretation of the postconviction statute as a matter of law. State v. Jama, 923 N.W.2d 632, 636 (Minn. 2019). If the statute's language is unambiguous, we will apply its plain meaning without engaging in further construction. State v. Alarcon, 932 N.W.2d 641, 645 (Minn. 2019). With this standard in mind, we consider the language of the postconviction statute.
6. The postconviction statute allows the court to resentence a petitioner only if the petitioner demonstrates that the sentence is unlawful or violates the petitioner's legal rights. Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1. We recently concluded that this statutory provision is unambiguous. State v. Burrell, __ N.W.2d__, 2022 WL 2659269, at *2 (Minn.App. July 11, 2022). We explained that the "availability of resentencing as a remedy is expressly limited to those situations in which that sentence is unlawful as having violated the person's rights." Id. A post-sentencing change in circumstances "does not render the initially imposed sentence unlawful post hoc based on the argument that these changed circumstances would now support a" shorter sentence. Id. at *3.
7. Here, the postconviction court correctly determined that it lacked authority to resentence Mohammed. The postconviction statute requires that the petitioner demonstrate that the sentence violates the person's statutory or constitutional rights before relief can be afforded. Id.; Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1. Mohammed made no claim that his existing sentence is unlawful. He only points to post-sentencing changed circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic and his health. As we held in Burrell, a post-sentencing change in circumstances does not provide authority, pursuant to the postconviction statute, to modify a legal sentence. 2022 WL 2659269, at *3.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
BY THE COURT