Opinion
A23-0226
10-24-2023
Zachariah Joel Peterson, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Anoka County District Court File No. 02-K9-06-001984
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
SARAH I. WHEELOCK, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Zachariah Joel Peterson challenges the district court's denial of his postconviction petition seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to aiding and abetting second-degree assault with a firearm. Peterson argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his petition as untimely because he meets the interests-of-justice exception to the two-year statutory time bar. Because we conclude that Peterson has not met the interests-of-justice exception to the two-year time bar, we affirm.
2. On May 26, 2006, Peterson pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting second-degree assault with a firearm in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.05, subd. 2, .222, subd. 1, .11, subd. 5 (2004). On the same day, the district court sentenced Peterson to 36 months in prison. Peterson did not file a direct appeal.
3. After serving his sentence in Minnesota, Peterson traveled to Missouri. In 2011, he was charged in Missouri with second-degree murder. In 2012, that case proceeded to trial. Before trial, Peterson received records related to his prior conviction in Minnesota. The records showed that Peterson had pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting second-degree assault with a firearm.
4. On May 31, 2022, Peterson filed a pro se postconviction petition seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. In an accompanying memorandum, Peterson argued that his guilty plea was unintelligent and invalid because he did not know about the firearm element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. Peterson argued that, because he did not know about the firearm element of the crime, he never formally pleaded guilty to and was never actually convicted of the offense. He also asserted that his attorney was not present during his plea hearing and that his conviction was therefore void. Finally, Peterson argued that the two-year time limit for filing a postconviction petition did not apply because his case presented "a rare and extraordinary circumstance."
5. The Office of the Minnesota Appellate Public Defender (OMAPD) was subsequently appointed to represent Peterson. In a letter filed as a supplement to Peterson's postconviction petition, an attorney with OMAPD asked the district court to grant Peterson's petition "in the interests of fairness and justice." In support of this request, the letter noted that OMAPD had received a copy of the complaint, plea petition, and sentencing order in Peterson's case, but that the rest of the record and transcripts had been destroyed pursuant to the district court's record-retention policy. The letter asked the district court to consider Hoagland v. State, a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a defendant who did not have access to a transcript of his trial might be entitled to a new trial, even though he filed his postconviction petition eight years after entry of his conviction, because court employees had failed to preserve the transcript. 518 N.W.2d 531, 535-36 (Minn. 1994). The letter also noted that there had been no appellate review of Peterson's conviction and that "convicted defendants are generally entitled to at least one right of review." Stutelberg v. State, 741 N.W.2d 867, 874 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).
6. The district court denied Peterson's petition for postconviction relief. In its order, the district court concluded that the record did not support Peterson's assertions that he did not plead guilty to aiding and abetting second-degree assault with a firearm and that his attorney was not present during the plea hearing. The district court also distinguished Peterson's case from Hoagland, explaining that court personnel had improperly destroyed the trial records in that case, whereas the records in Peterson's case were properly disposed of according to the record-retention policy of the Minnesota Judicial Branch. The district court also noted that if Peterson had filed his petition when he became aware of the firearm element of the conviction, "the transcript and court reporter notes would still have been available for review." Finally, the district court denied Peterson's petition as untimely because it was not filed within two years after the entry of judgment of conviction or sentence and concluded that no exception to the two-year statutory time limit applied. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2022).
7. On appeal, Peterson challenges the district court's denial of his postconviction petition. We review the district court's denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion. Campbell v. State, 916 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2018). In determining whether a district court abused its discretion, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Eason v. State, 950 N.W.2d 258, 263-64 (Minn. 2020).
8. A person convicted of a crime may bring a postconviction petition seeking to vacate and set aside a judgment based on a claim that the conviction violated their constitutional rights or their rights under federal or state law. Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (2022). Generally, no petition for postconviction relief may be filed more than two years after the entry of judgment of conviction or an appellate court's disposition of a petitioner's direct appeal. Id., subd. 4(a). But even if more than two years have elapsed, a postconviction court may still consider a petition for postconviction relief if the petitioner establishes "that the petition is not frivolous and is in the interests of justice." Id., subd. 4(b)(5). This exception is "triggered by an injustice that caused the petitioner to miss the primary deadline in subdivision 4(a) and not the substantive claims in the petition." Caldwell v. State, 976 N.W.2d 131, 141 (Minn. 2022) (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted).
9. To establish that an untimely petition should still be considered in the interests of justice, the petitioner "must allege an injustice"-that is, "an act or omission"- that prevented them from filing the petition within the two-year period. Hannon v. State, 957 N.W.2d 425, 436 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted). Importantly, any petition invoking the interests-of-justice exception "must be filed within two years of the date the claim arises." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c).
10. Peterson's postconviction petition is clearly time-barred by Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a). He was convicted on May 26, 2006. Because he did not directly appeal, the two-year limitations period began running when the district court entered the judgment of conviction on that date. See id., subd. 4(a). Peterson did not file his postconviction petition until May 31, 2022, approximately 16 years later. Therefore, Peterson's petition is time-barred and the only issue on appeal is whether he meets the interests-of-justice exception to the two-year time bar.
11. Under the interests-of-justice exception, the "'[c]laim' refers to an event that supports a right to relief under the asserted exception." Yang v. State, 805 N.W.2d 921, 925 (Minn.App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 7, 2012). The supreme court uses the objective "knew or should have known" standard to determine when a claim arises for purposes of determining when the two-year time limit in subdivision 4(c) begins to run. Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550, 558 (Minn. 2012). And when the claim is the same as the substance of the petition, i.e., the purportedly invalid guilty plea, that is also the date Peterson objectively should have known of the claim. See id. at 557.
12. But even applying a subjective actual knowledge standard, we conclude that Peterson has failed to establish that the interests-of-justice exception applies. Peterson asserts that he discovered in 2012 that he had pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting second-degree assault with a firearm. But he did not file his postconviction petition until May 31, 2022, approximately ten years later. And he offers no reason to explain why he did not file his petition within two years after making this discovery. See id., subd. 4(c); Hannon, 957 N.W.2d at 436. Therefore, Peterson has not shown that the interests-of-justice exception applies, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Peterson's petition as untimely.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order denying postconviction relief 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.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.