Somlith Vongphasouk v. State of Minnesota ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-1400
Somlith Vongphasouk, petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
State of Minnesota,
Respondent.
Filed June 22, 2015
Affirmed
Chutich, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-99-011779
Deborah K. Ellis, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Chutich, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHUTICH, Judge
Petitioner-appellant Somlith Vongphasouk challenges the denial of postconviction
relief, arguing that his petition was timely and that the district court has inherent authority
to modify an expired sentence. Because Vongphasouk did not file his petition within two
years of the accrual of his claim, we affirm.
FACTS
Somlith Vongphasouk was born in Laos in 1977. His family fled Laos in 1986
because of the political climate and spent one year in Thailand and six months in the
Philippines as refugees. The family arrived in California in 1988 and moved to
Minnesota three months later. In September 1989, Vongphasouk obtained lawful
permanent resident status.
In 1999, when he was twenty-two years old, Vongphasouk was charged with
felony aiding and abetting offering a forged check. His attorney negotiated a plea
agreement that he believed would not jeopardize Vongphasouk’s immigration status.
Because the attorney was unaware that this negotiated sentence and conviction would
make Vongphasouk ineligible to enter the United States, the attorney advised
Vongphasouk to accept the offer. Vongphasouk accepted the offer and pleaded guilty to
gross misdemeanor offering a forged check. The district court sentenced him to the
recommended sentence of 365 days in jail with 275 days stayed and the remaining 90
days divided between jail and community service work. Vongphasouk was not advised
that pleading guilty could affect his immigration status, and the guilty plea petition lacked
an immigration warning.
Since that time, Vongphasouk has not only remained offense-free but also has
become, as the postconviction court noted, “a valuable, productive member of this
community.” In 2006 and 2007, Vongphasouk visited Laos and was allowed to reenter
2
the United States. In 2010, while returning from a third trip to Laos, United States
Customs and Border Protection detained Vongphasouk and charged him with being an
inadmissible alien. Vongphasouk faces removal proceedings that could result in
deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2012) (stating that aliens convicted of
crimes involving moral turpitude and sentenced to one year or longer are deportable). In
2011, Vongphasouk filed a petition for postconviction relief; after an evidentiary hearing,
the postconviction court denied relief.
In January 2014, Vongphasouk filed a motion to correct his sentence under
Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, asking the district court to
reduce his sentence by one day. At the hearing in April 2014, Vongphasouk argued that
the district court could consider his motion as a petition for postconviction relief. The
state opposed reducing Vongphasouk’s sentence.
In June 2014, the district court denied relief. In denying the motion to correct the
sentence, the district court noted that rule 27.03, subdivision 9, only permits the court to
correct a sentence not authorized by law. The district court explained that because
Vongphasouk’s sentence was not unauthorized or contrary to law, it could not grant relief
on this basis.
The district court then discussed the timeliness of Vongphasouk’s motion if
construed as a postconviction petition, noting that he filed for relief beyond the two-year
time bar set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4(a) (2014). The
district court concluded that the petition met the interests-of-justice exception listed under
subdivision 4(b)(5) (2014), and therefore it was not time barred under subdivision 4(a).
3
Specifically, the district court concluded that the interests of justice warranted
considering the petition because of the federal government’s failure to apply the law
during Vongphasouk’s 2006 and 2007 trips to Laos. And it stated that applying the
interests-of-justice exception would not affect the finality of his conviction.
Despite meeting the interests-of-justice exception, the district court still considered
the petition untimely. It reasoned that Vongphasouk knew or should have known of his
claim in October 2010, when Customs and Border Protection first detained him. But he
did not file this petition until January 2014. Because Minnesota Statutes section 590.01,
subdivision 4(c) (2014) requires a petition to be filed within two years of the accrual of
the interests-of-justice claim, the district court considered the petition untimely.
The district court nevertheless discussed the merits of Vongphasouk’s petition but
reluctantly found that relief was not warranted. It concluded that while adjusting the
sentence by one day was “modest, sensible, and harmless,” it had no legal basis to modify
the sentence. Vongphasouk appealed.
DECISION
On appeal, Vongphasouk argues that the district court erred by dismissing his
petition as untimely and by concluding that it lacked the inherent authority to modify the
sentence. We affirm the denial of postconviction relief because the petition was
untimely.
Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4(a), requires a petition for
postconviction relief to be filed not more than two years after “the entry of judgment of
conviction or sentence if no direct appeal is filed.” But a petition may be filed after this
4
two-year time limit if “the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the
petition is not frivolous and is in the interests of justice.” Id., subd. 4(b)(5). A petition
brought under the interests-of-justice exception must be filed within two years of the date
that the claim arises. Id., subd. 4(c).
The district court here concluded that Vongphasouk met the requirements of the
interests-of-justice exception but that his petition was still untimely. It determined that
the triggering event was Vongphasouk’s 2010 detention, and therefore his petition was
untimely because he did not file it until 2014. Vongphasouk does not argue that this
conclusion is incorrect. Instead, he urges this court to use its inherent authority to waive
the time bar in the interests of justice. Vongphasouk relies on Vang v. State, 788 N.W.2d
111 (Minn. 2010), to support this argument.
In Vang, the state filed a delinquency petition alleging that the 14-year-old Vang
committed first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and attempted first-degree
murder. Id. at 113. The state filed a motion to certify Vang as an adult. Id. Vang then
appeared in juvenile court, and the parties informed the court that they had negotiated a
resolution. Id. Vang did not stipulate to any of the factors required to certify him as an
adult, and the juvenile court made no findings or ruling on the adult certification issue.
Id. The juvenile court accepted Vang’s guilty pleas to first-degree murder and attempted
first-degree murder, and it sentenced him to adult sentences for the convictions. Id.Following these convictions, Vang wrote to the State Public Defender’s Office
five times between 2001 and 2005, requesting that it represent him in appealing the
convictions. Id. at 113-14. The Public Defender’s Office continuously replied that it
5
could not help him. Id. at 114. After Vang’s sixth request in 2008, the Public Defender’s
Office assigned counsel in 2009. Id. Vang’s postconviction petition was denied. Id.Upon review, the supreme court rejected the state’s argument that Vang’s petition
was barred by the two-year time limit for postconviction relief. Id. It noted that it has
interpreted Minnesota Constitution article VI, section 2, as granting it “constitutionally
independent authority to review determinations by the other state courts,” and that it has
“invoked this inherent authority to hear an appeal.” Id. (quotation omitted). The
supreme court concluded that Vang’s case was a rare and exceptional case both
procedurally and substantively: procedurally because of Vang’s multiple requests for
representation by the Public Defender’s Office; substantively because it involved
nonwaivable subject-matter jurisdiction claims. Id. at 114-15. It then proceeded to
review Vang’s claims. Id. at 115. Notably, the supreme court stated that because its
review was “akin to a direct appeal,” it would not decide the statute of limitations issue.
Id.Vongphasouk’s reliance on Vang is unavailing. Since its release, the supreme
court has been reluctant to invoke its inherent authority, noting the rare and exceptional
procedural and substantive circumstances present in Vang. See Sanchez v. State, 816
N.W.2d 550, 566-67 (Minn. 2012); Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 615 n.14 (Minn.
2012). While Vongphasouk relies on Vang, he does not articulate how his situation
proves to be so rare and exceptional as to require the invocation of this court’s inherent
authority.
6
We conclude that Vongphasouk’s case is more similar to Sanchez v. State than to
Vang. In Sanchez, a petition for postconviction relief was brought under the interests-of-
justice exception but was considered untimely under section 590.01, subdivision 4(c).
816 N.W.2d at 560. Relying on Vang, Sanchez urged the supreme court to consider his
claim under its inherent authority. Id. at 566. But the supreme court declined to do so.
Id. at 567. It noted that unlike Vang, Sanchez was “not persistently trying to seek review
of his conviction,” distinguishing the case from the exceptional procedural circumstances
in Vang. Id. And the supreme court also distinguished the substantive circumstances of
the case, noting that unlike the nonwaivable jurisdictional argument in Vang, “the errors
that Sanchez seeks to have reviewed, [including] the constitutional right to have effective
assistance of counsel . . . are rights that are subject to waiver.” Id.
We conclude that this reasoning applies here. Like Sanchez—and unlike Vang—
no evidence suggests that Vongphasouk persistently sought review of his conviction but
was denied representation. While his delay may have been excusable given that the
current issue did not arise until 2010, he sought postconviction relief twice, and a court
considered his petitions each time. This procedural history is not as “rare and
exceptional” as that in Vang.
Vongphasouk argues that his petition should be considered because his “[t]rial
counsel’s and 2011 postconviction counsel’s failures provide cause for a review on the
merits.” But the Sanchez court rejected a similar argument, stating that because the right
to effective assistance of counsel is waivable, it does not reach the substantive level of
“rare and exceptional” that was required for review in Vang. Id. at 567. Because
7
Vongphasouk’s case does not meet the narrow standard set by the supreme court for a
“rare and exceptional” case either procedurally or substantively, we conclude that the
district court did not err by denying the petition as untimely.
Although we affirm the district court’s decision in this case, we agree that, if more
discretionary standards were applicable, “reducing an already-served sentence by one day
. . . to prevent [Vongphasouk’s] removal to a potentially hostile country is a modest,
sensible, and harmless request.” At oral argument, counsel for the state suggested that
even if it agreed to this minor sentencing modification, the original conviction may still
count for deportation purposes under federal law. That may well be true, but deportation
under these circumstances is troubling. Vongphasouk has remained law-abiding for 16
years; his only offense was aiding and abetting a gross misdemeanor check forgery
offense when he was twenty-two years old. Deporting a “valuable, productive member
of the community” to a country where he does not speak the native language and from
which his family fled political persecution almost 30 years ago when he was just a boy
seems unduly harsh.
Affirmed.
8