Opinion
A22-0021
07-13-2022
Joseph Bergeron, Appellant, v. Commissioner of Corrections, Paul Schnell, et al., Respondents.
Washington County District Court File No. 82-CV-21-2440
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
KEVIN G. ROSS, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. A jury in 1989 found Joseph Bergeron guilty of first-degree murder, the district court sentenced him to life in prison, and the supreme court affirmed his conviction. State v. Bergeron, 452 N.W.2d 918, 919 (Minn. 1990) (Bergeron I).
2. In early 2011 the commissioner of corrections placed Bergeron on intensive supervised release, but three years later the state charged him with driving while impaired, fleeing a peace officer, and obstructing legal process. Bergeron v. Roy, No. A16-0351, 2016 WL 4421554, at *1-2 (Minn.App. Aug. 22, 2016) (Bergeron II). Bergeron's release violations returned him to prison. Id. at 2. He has twice unsuccessfully petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus and once for a writ of mandamus, seeking to be released. Id.; Bergeron v. Roy, No. A16-1999, 2017 WL 2920297, at *2 (Minn.App. July 10, 2017) (Bergeron III); Bergeron v. Comm'r of Corr., No. A18-0733, 2019 WL 178534, at *2 (Minn.App. Jan. 14, 2019) (Bergeron IV), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 19, 2019).
4. This appeal addresses another petition for a writ of mandamus-his fourth challenge to his reincarceration. Bergeron argued primarily that the commissioner violated Minnesota Rule 2940.3800 when the commissioner failed to release him within six months of his reincarceration. The district court dismissed Bergeron's petition with prejudice, concluding that, although rule 2940.3800, subparts A through C strictly limit the time certain offenders can remain in prison after reincarceration, subpart D gives the commissioner discretion in other instances, like this one.
5. We review a legal challenge to a writ of mandamus de novo. Breza v. City of Minnetrista, 725 N.W.2d 106, 110 (Minn. 2006). To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show three things: (1) that the respondent has "failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law," (2) that the failure injured him, and (3) that there is "no other adequate legal remedy." Id. at 109-10 (quotation omitted). Bergeron argues on appeal that the district court erred when it held that rule 2940.3800 does not impose a duty on the commissioner.
6. The district court reasoned correctly. Rule 2940.3800, subparts A through C instruct the commissioner to assign "a release date and a term of reimprisonment" to reincarcerated offenders within six months after reimprisoning them. But under subpart D, "depending on the time remaining to be served on the sentence, the type of violation, and the needs of the offender, up to expiration of the sentence may be assigned as the term of reimprisonment if there is a finding of risk to the public . . . ." The commissioner therefore has discretion to imprison Bergeron for more than six months.
7. Bergeron's alternative argument that our decision in Bergeron III mandates that we grant him relief is flawed. It rests on his erroneous assertion that we then held that the commissioner had violated statutes and regulations when reincarcerating him. We instead held only that Bergeron "failed to establish that any of the alleged statutory and regulatory violations rises to the level of a jurisdictional defect or a constitutional violation." Bergeron III, 2017 WL 2920297, at *6 (emphasis added).
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.