Opinion
A23-1192
03-05-2024
Earl Ward, Appellant, v. Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of DHS, et al., Respondents.
Carlton County District Court File No. 09-CV-23-444
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Sarah I. Wheelock, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Earl Ward challenges the district court's dismissal, without an evidentiary hearing, of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the district court did not err in summarily denying Ward's petition, we affirm.
2. Ward has a lengthy history of mostly violent criminal activity. Most relevant to this petition are a 1991 conviction for promoting prostitution, a 2000 conviction for second-degree assault (combined with charges of kidnapping and terroristic threats), and a 2008 conviction for second-degree assault (combined with charges for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, and terroristic threats).
The 2000 conviction required Ward to register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a)(1) (1998), and the 2008 conviction required Ward to register as a predatory offender for life under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subds. 1b(a)(1), 6(d)(1) (2006).
3. In April 2022, a district court in Ramsey County indeterminately committed Ward as a sexually dangerous person and a sexual psychopathic personality. This type of commitment requires him to register for life as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(d)(3) (2020). Ward appealed his civil commitment, and this court affirmed. In re Civ. Commitment of Ward, No. A22-0887 (Minn.App. Dec. 5, 2022), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 22, 2023).
4. In March 2023, Ward filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus listing Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), as the respondent. Ward argued that the imposition of a lifetime predatory-offender registration requirement based on his 1991, 2000, and 2008 convictions is an unconstitutional ex post facto law and violates his due-process rights. He requested an evidentiary hearing. The district court denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing because the petition raised only questions of law and requested relief that falls outside the scope of a habeas petition. Ward appeals.
5. This court reviews de novo whether a petition is within the scope of a writ of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Ford v. Schnell, 933 N.W.2d 393, 404 (Minn. 2019).
6. A writ of habeas corpus is a statutory civil remedy by which a petitioner may obtain relief from unlawful imprisonment or restraint. Minn. Stat. § 589.01 (2022). "Committed persons may challenge the legality of their commitment through habeas corpus," but the court will consider only constitutional and jurisdictional challenges. Joelson v. O'Keefe, 594 N.W.2d 905, 908 (Minn.App. 1999), rev. denied (Minn. July 28, 1999). A habeas petition "may not be used as a substitute for an appeal or as a cover for a collateral attack upon a judgment of a competent tribunal which had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person of the defendant." State ex rel. Shannon v. Tahash, 121 N.W.2d 59, 61 (Minn. 1963). A petition is properly denied if the petitioner could have raised the underlying claims through other legal means. See Kelsey v. State, 283 N.W.2d 892, 893-94 (Minn. 1979) (stating that a habeas petition must be dismissed when used as a vehicle for raising issues that could have been raised in a direct appeal or postconviction petition).
7. Ward's arguments and the relief he seeks are outside the scope of a habeas petition. Ward does not seek relief from his indeterminate commitment, and he does not raise arguments related to the constitutionality of his commitment or the jurisdiction of the court that ordered his commitment. Ward argues that the requirement that he register for life as a predatory offender pursuant to his 1991, 2000, and 2008 convictions is unconstitutional as an ex post facto law and a violation of his substantive due-process rights. However, the reporting requirement is not related to his 2022 indeterminate commitment to DHS. These arguments and the relief requested are an attempt to invalidate the registration statute and vacate the requirement that he register as a predatory offender. Because Ward's claims do not relate to his confinement, they cannot be brought in a habeas petition. Therefore, the district court did not err when it denied Ward's petition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The district court's order denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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.