St. Louis County District Court File No. K5-97-100032
Considered and decided by Klaphake , Presiding Judge, Randall , Judge, and
Harten , Judge.
1. Mistaken reference to "supervised" release rather than "conditional" release at the plea hearing and at sentencing, does not in itself render a guilty plea unintelligent.
2. Mandatory conditional release imposed under Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7 (2002), is included in calculating the maximum sentence for a criminal act.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harten, Judge
In post-conviction proceedings, on a pro se appeal from the denial of a motion to modify his 1997 sentence for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant Jason Stone argues that his sentence should be reduced because his plea was not intelligent and that the conditional release period unlawfully extends his sentence past the ten-year statutory maximum sentence for his crime. We affirm.
On 28 July 1997, Jason Stone pleaded guilty and was sentenced for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.345, subd. 1(c) (1996). Before Stone entered his plea, his attorney acknowledged that Stone would be subject to a five-year "supervised release" period. After Stone entered his plea, but before the district court accepted it, the pre-sentence investigator noted on the record that Stone was subject to a ten-year "supervised release" due to a prior criminal sexual conduct conviction. At that point, the parties had a discussion off the record. The district court then accepted Stone's plea and asked Stone if he wished to say anything. Stone made a brief comment unrelated to his plea and the court imposed his sentence:
[T]he sentence of the Court is 40 months with the Commissioner of Corrections. à I also direct as required by state law, two additional things as part of the sentence that don't impact the sentence itself or good time. The first is the 10 years of supervised release upon your release regardless of when that is à.*fn1
When the court asked Stone if he had any questions, he replied "No. No, I do not."
In April 2003, in post-conviction proceedings, Stone sought a sentence modification, arguing that he was not properly informed of the ten-year conditional release period and that his sentence unlawfully ...