Opinion
A23-0874
11-09-2023
Faron Wayne Ruel, Appellant, v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Carlton County District Court File No. 09-CV-23-237
Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Ede, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Matthew E. Johnson, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Faron Wayne Ruel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a ten-year term of conditional release that will follow his present term of imprisonment. The district court denied the petition on the ground that the relief sought is not available in a habeas action. We affirm.
2. In 2014, a Polk County jury found Ruel guilty of aiding and abetting third-degree criminal sexual conduct, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.344, subd. 1(d), 609.05, subd. 1 (2012). The district court imposed a sentence of 180 months of imprisonment, to be followed by ten years of conditional release. On direct appeal, Ruel challenged his conviction, and this court affirmed. State v. Ruel, No. A15-0152, 2016 WL 363407 (Minn.App. Feb. 1, 2016), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 19, 2016). Ruel later petitioned for postconviction relief on three occasions; each time, his petition was denied, and this court affirmed. Ruel v. State, No. A18-0577, 2019 WL 418528 (Minn.App. Feb. 4, 2019), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 24, 2019); Ruel v. State, No. A20-0839, 2021 WL 688606 (Minn.App. Feb. 16, 2021) (order op.); Ruel v. State, A21-1729 (Minn.App. July 28, 2022) (order op.), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 18, 2022).
3. In January 2023, while imprisoned at the correctional facility in Moose Lake, Ruel petitioned the Carlton County District Court for a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed that the district court did not impose a ten-year conditional-release term but that such a term had been "administratively placed, above and beyond" the district court's sentence, by the commissioner of corrections. He asked the district court to order the commissioner of corrections to "remove" the conditional-release term so that he will not be subject to "unlawful restraint for up to an additional ten years."
4. The district court denied Ruel's petition without a hearing on the ground that a habeas petition is an inappropriate means of challenging a district court's imposition of a conditional-release term at sentencing.
5. Our review of the record of Ruel's sentencing in 2014 indicates that the Polk County District Court expressly imposed a ten-year conditional-release term as part of his sentence. At the sentencing hearing, the district court said to Ruel, "Because you are convicted of criminal sexual conduct, the statutes of Minnesota provide that the commissioner of corrections place you on conditional release for a period of up to ten years, minus any time that you served on supervised release." The sentencing judge's oral statement is confirmed by the warrant of commitment, which states, "Conditional release after confinement has been set at 10 years." The sentencing record is consistent with a statute providing that, if "a court commits an offender to the custody of the commissioner of corrections for a violation of" section 609.344, "the court shall provide that, after the offender has completed the sentence imposed, the commissioner shall place the offender on conditional release for ten years." Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 6 (2012).
6. To the extent that Ruel's habeas petition is interpreted as challenging the district court's imposition of the conditional-release term at sentencing, Ruel is not entitled to relief because a habeas proceeding is not an appropriate means of obtaining review of district court decisions at trial and at sentencing. See Kelsey v. State ex rel. Wood, 283 N.W.2d 892, 893-94 (Minn. 1979); State ex rel. Schwanke v. Utecht, 47 N.W.2d 99, 103 (Minn. 1951); State ex rel. Holm v. Tahash, 139 N.W.2d 161, 163 (Minn. 1965). "Direct appeal and the postconviction remedy . . . are available for that purpose ...." Kelsey, 283 N.W.2d at 894; see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (2022); Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 601-02 (Minn. 2012) (discussing Kelsey and passage of post-conviction act). Thus, Ruel may not challenge the district court's imposition of the ten-year conditional-release term in a habeas proceeding.
7. To the extent that Ruel's habeas petition is interpreted as challenging a decision of the commissioner of corrections, Ruel also is not entitled to relief. A habeas proceeding is an appropriate means of obtaining review of an administrative decision of the commissioner of corrections that implements a sentence imposed by a district court. State v. Schnagl, 859 N.W.2d 297, 300-04 (Minn. 2015). But Ruel simply is incorrect in his assertion that his conditional-release term was "administratively placed" or otherwise imposed by the commissioner of corrections. As explained above, Ruel's conditionalrelease term was imposed by the district court, not by the commissioner of corrections. Thus, Ruel cannot prevail on a claim purporting to challenge a decision of the commissioner of corrections that never was made. 8. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying Ruel's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
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.