Hennepin County District Court File No. 0031129
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge,
and Minge, Judge.
A criminal defendant may challenge a restitution order in a post-conviction proceeding provided that the defendant (a) files a detailed petition setting forth all challenges to the restitution order and (b) requests a hearing within 30 days after sentencing or within 30 days after receiving notification of the restitution amount requested, whichever is later.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Toussaint, Chief Judge
On appeal from an order denying his post-conviction challenge to a restitution order, appellant Oscar James Mason argues that the post-conviction court (a) erred in reserving the restitution issue at sentencing, (b) erred in issuing its restitution order after sentencing, and (c) misinformed him about the proper procedure for challenging a restitution order. Because Mason did not request a hearing within 30 days after receiving notice of the restitution amount requested, as required by Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b) (2000), we affirm.
In April 2000, Oscar Mason pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and to receiving stolen goods. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the district court sentenced Mason to concurrent prison terms of 36 and 26 months, and Mason agreed to pay restitution for the out-of-pocket expenses his two victims incurred as a result of his crimes. At the sentencing hearing, the district court reserved the restitution issue because it had not yet received a restitution request from one of the victims. Mason agreed to the court's reservation of the issue and waived a presentence investigation so that he could begin serving his sentence as soon as possible. The court told Mason that if he disagreed with the restitution order, he could "object and have a hearing." The court also told Mason that he would receive a letter informing him of the restitution amount requested and that he should let the court know "if [he] want[ed] to fight it."
On January 23, 2001, Mason received a memorandum from the Department of Corrections notifying him that the court had ordered $1,940.70 in restitution. On March 13, 2001, Mason received notice that judgment in that amount had been entered. The March 13 notice listed the dollar amounts and specific items for which restitution had been ordered.
Later in March, Mason unsuccessfully sought the assistance of Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners (LAMP) and the State Public Defender's Office in challenging the restitution amount. In October, more than six months after receiving notification of the restitution amount requested, Mason filed a post-conviction petition contesting the portion of the order awarding one of the victims restitution for the purchase and installation of a new home security system. The post-conviction court heard Mason's petition in January 2002, and later denied it, reasoning that the request for a hearing was untimely under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(b) (2000). This appeal followed.
Did the court err by rejecting Mason's post-conviction challenge to the ...