Ramsey County District Court File No. K7-00-1016.
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Anderson, Judge.
1. A criminal defendant may intentionally waive a known right or privilege if the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
2. Following a trial, conviction, sentencing, and filing of an appellate brief, appellant was not prohibited by Minnesota law from settling the appeal and waiving future appeals in exchange for a significant reduction in his sentence.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kalitowski, Judge
Dissenting, Klaphake, Judge
As a stipulated settlement of his criminal appeal, appellant Charles Lee Spann agreed to waive his right to further appeals. Appellant contends the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief based on this waiver.
In October 2000, appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The district court subsequently sentenced appellant to two consecutive 118-month sentences, an upward departure from the presumptive sentence of 86 months. Consecutive sentencing was permissive because appellant's convictions resulted from his crimes against two separate victims. Represented by counsel, appellant filed an appeal to this court, challenging his convictions and sentence. Specifically, appellant argued that his convictions should be reversed because of possible juror bias, improper admission of a taped interview, and prosecutorial misconduct. Appellant also claimed that the district court erred in imposing an upward sentencing departure.
After appellant's brief was filed but before the state's brief was due, the parties reached a stipulated resolution of appellant's appeal. The state agreed to recommend to the district court a modification of appellant's sentence to the guideline sentence of two consecutive 86-month terms. In exchange, appellant agreed to dismiss the pending appeal and waive all future appellate and post-conviction review. The parties filed with this court the written stipulation of this agreement, signed by both counsel and appellant personally, and this court dismissed appellant's appeal on August 14, 2001. Subsequently, appellant appeared in person and with counsel before the district court, and pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the district court resentenced appellant to two consecutive 86-month terms.
In May 2003, appellant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Appellant subsequently retained the assistance of counsel and filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief challenging the validity of his waiver of his right to appeal. The district court denied appellant's petition for post-conviction relief, on the ground that following his conviction, sentencing, and submission of an appellate brief, ...