Opinion
A23-1960
06-10-2024
Deshawn Devontae Lamar Wilson, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-17-15087
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
PETER M. REYES, JR. JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2018, a jury found appellant Deshawn Devontae Lamar Wilson guilty of one count of aiding and abetting a drive-by shooting and eleven counts of aiding and abetting second-degree assault. Because each count pertained to a different victim, the district court sentenced appellant on each of the eleven second-degree assault charges, including six consecutive and five concurrent sentences, for a total sentence of 240 months.
2. In his direct appeal, appellant argued that, among other things, the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 240-month sentence. State v. Wilson, No. A18-1337, 2019 WL 4409393 (Minn.App. Sept. 16, 2019), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 27, 2019). We affirmed, concluding that the district court acted within its discretion by imposing six consecutive sentences because appellant's crimes involved multiple victims, and the sentence did not exaggerate the criminality of appellant's conduct. Id. at *5 (citing State v. Bookwalter, 541 N.W.2d 290, 294 (Minn. 1995)).
3. In 2021, appellant filed his first petition for postconviction relief, in which he argued that the district court improperly imposed multiple sentences for the same behavioral incident. The postconviction court denied appellant's petition, determining that, although Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2016) ordinarily precludes multiple sentences for crimes occurring during a continuous course of conduct, the statute's multiple-victim exception permitted the district court to impose multiple sentences in appellant's case.
4. In 2022, appellant filed a second petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the district court provided erroneous jury instructions and that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court denied appellant's petition and appellant did not file an appeal.
5. In August 2023, appellant filed a document entitled "motions to correct an erroneous sentence 27.03" in which he asserted that the district court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense and (2) imposing multiple sentences for one behavioral incident. The postconviction court treated appellant's filing as his third petition for postconviction relief and determined that it was both statutorily time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (2022) and procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976). Appellant subsequently filed two additional motions to correct his sentence which were both denied by the postconviction court. This appeal follows.
6. Initially, it is unclear whether this appeal concerns the postconviction court's order denying appellant's third petition for postconviction relief or the order denying his two subsequent motions to correct his sentence. Although his notice of appeal lists the date of the challenged order as December 19, 2023, the postconviction court never filed an order on that day. However, appellant's statement of the case lists the date of the challenged order as November 1, 2023, which corresponds with the order denying his third petition for postconviction relief. Regardless, because the parties address both orders in this appeal, we review each order in the interests of judicial economy. See Edstrom v. State, 326 N.W.2d 10, 10 (Minn. 1982).
7. We review the postconviction court's decision to deny relief for an abuse of discretion. Zenanko v. State, 688 N.W.2d 861, 864 (Minn. 2004). Absent a recognized exception, no petition for postconviction relief may be filed more than two years after an appellate court's disposition of the petitioner's direct appeal. Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(2). The procedural requirements of section 590.01 may not be circumvented by labeling substantive challenges to an underlying conviction as a motion to correct a sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03. Wayne v. State, 870 N.W.2d 389, 391 (Minn. 2015). Here, although appellant labeled his August 2023 filing as a motion to correct his sentence, his filing included substantive challenges to his underlying conviction, and the postconviction court therefore properly construed it as a petition for postconviction relief that was subject to the two-year time limit under Minn. Stat. § 590.01. See id.
8. Minnesota's postconviction statute enumerates certain limited exceptions to the two-year filing deadline. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b). Of these, the only exception at issue in appellant's case is whether his late filing should be considered "in the interests of justice." Id., subd. 4(b)(5). The "interests of justice" exception is reserved for "exceptional" situations and generally may not be invoked if the petitioner inexcusably failed to raise the issue on direct appeal. Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 607-08 (Minn. 2012). Here, although appellant should have been aware of the jury instructions following his trial in 2018, he did not raise the issue in his direct appeal, and he did not file a postconviction petition challenging the instructions until 2022, well after the two-year deadline had expired. Because appellant inexcusably failed to challenge the jury instructions in his direct appeal, his case is not an "exceptional" situation that would allow his late petition to be reviewed in the "interests of justice." The postconviction court therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's petition.
9. Appellant also submitted two subsequent filings that challenged only the legality of his underlying sentence. We construe these filings as motions to correct appellant's sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, which allows courts to correct a sentence not authorized by law "at any time." In his motions, appellant appears to renew his claim from his first petition for postconviction relief that the district court violated Minn. Stat. § 609.035 by imposing multiple sentences for a single course of conduct.
10. The postconviction court previously determined that the district court properly imposed multiple sentences under the "multiple victim exception" to Minn. Stat. § 609.035. Under that exception, district courts may impose multiple sentences for crimes emanating from a single behavioral incident if "(1) the crimes affect multiple victims[] and (2) multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct." State v. Ferguson, 808 N.W.2d 586, 590 (Minn. 2012). Here, appellant's drive-by shooting affected eleven separate victims, and we already concluded in appellant's direct appeal that the district court's sentence did not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of appellant's conduct. Wilson, 2019 WL 4409393 at *5. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion by the postconviction court.
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.