Ramsey County District Court File No. K1-96-793.
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Willis, Judge, and Minge, Judge.
1. Minn. Const. art. IV, § 22, requires that all laws of the State of Minnesota contain an enacting clause.
2. The laws of Minnesota are bills that have been enacted by the legislature and then signed by the governor, enacted after three days of gubernatorial inaction, or passed by a legislative override of the governor's veto.
3. Statutes are enacted laws that are codified, organized, and assembled by the revisor of statutes.
4. The Minnesota Statutes are prima facie evidence of the laws of Minnesota, but they are not the laws themselves.
5. Minn. Stat. § 3C.08 (2002), which sets forth the required contents of the Minnesota Statutes, does not require that the enacting clauses be republished in the Minnesota Statutes.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Randall, Judge
On appeal from the order denying his post-conviction petition challenging his 1996 conviction of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argues that (1) the district court that tried him lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that the statute under which he was convicted is void because it does not contain an enacting clause, and (2) the district court's failure to respond to his notice and demand should be deemed an admission to its allegations, and that the judge violated her oath of office. Because we find no constitutional deficiency in appellant's convictions, we affirm.
In 1996, a jury found appellant Howard Ledden guilty of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct for the sexual abuse of his 13-year-old daughter and four-year-old stepdaughter. Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, and this court affirmed in State v. Ledden, No. C8-97-515, 1998 WL 74264 (Minn. App. Feb. 24, 1998), review denied (Minn. April 30, 1998).
On July 14, 1998, appellant petitioned for post-conviction relief. His petition was denied, and appellant chose not to appeal the denial. After an unsuccessful petition for habeas corpus relief in federal court, appellant filed a motion for correction of sentence on March 21, 2001. The district court denied the motion, and this court affirmed the denial of relief in Ledden v. ...