Appellate courts in Minnesota and Nebraska, for instance, have opted not to apply a prison mailbox rule in light of state law requirements that a notice of appeal actually be filed with the clerk of court.See, e.g.,Toua Hong Chang v. State, 778 N.W.2d 388, 392 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) ; State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356, 586 N.W.2d 279, 283-84 (1998). North Dakota considers the deadline for appeal in criminal cases to be non-jurisdictional and subject to its appellate rules allowing for an extension of thirty days upon a showing of good cause.
See Toua Hong Chang v. State, 778 N.W.2d 388, 390 (Minn.App. 2010).
See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2010); Chang v. State, 778 N.W.2d 388, 390 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. Apr. 28, 2010).
Chang v. State, 778 N.W.2d 388, 389 (Minn.App. 2010). Chang distinguished Houston on the ground that it concerned a federal rule of procedure, noting that "[n]either the Minnesota Supreme Court nor this court has considered in a [precedential] opinion whether to apply the rationale of Houston's so-called 'prison mailbox rule' to similar provisions of Minnesota law" and rejecting the application because "such a rule is inconsistent with our supreme court's opinion[] in . . .
We have previously concluded that a postconviction petition is timely filed only if it is received by the district court before the statute of limitations expires and that delays that result from the "prison mailbox" have no bearing on the timeliness of that filing. Chang v. State, 778 N.W.2d 388, 393 (Minn. App. 2010). Likewise, the remaining circumstances that appellant identifies as relevant to his delay in filing the postconviction petition are not so exceptional as to warrant relief from the statutory time bar. Restrictions to the law library and other challenges that result from a petitioner's incarceration are, as the district court noted, common to "[e]very incarcerated pro-se inmate" who is considering whether to file a petition for postconviction relief.