Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reitz v. Hammer

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

November 12, 2013

Belford William Reitz, III, petitioner, Appellant,
v.
Steve Hammer, et al., Respondents.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Chisago County District Court File No. 13-CV-13-78

Belford W. Reitz, III, Rush City, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Kelly S. Kemp, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Connolly, Judge.

CONNOLLY, Judge

In this pro se challenge to the denial of his habeas corpus petition, appellant argues that the conditional-release period of his sentence is illegal and unconstitutional and that his risk-level classification should be decreased. Because neither a sentence nor a risk-level classification may be challenged in a habeas corpus petition, we affirm.

FACTS

In 1991, appellant Belford Reitz, then 18, pleaded guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. He was placed on probation for ten years.[1] This conviction was introduced as Spreigl evidence in 2002, when appellant was tried and convicted by a jury on two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with minors.

At the 2002 sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced appellant to concurrent terms of 36 months in prison and 41 months in prison and told him each time, "[Y]ou are advised that you will be placed on a ten year conditional release period to the Commissioner of Corrections upon completion of this sentence."

In November 2002, the Department of Corrections (DOC) Records Office Supervisor wrote to the district court, saying:

In [appellant's] warrant of commitment and sentencing order, there was no mention of the conditional release period required by Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7. In order to accurately calculate and inform the inmate about the sentence, we need to know whether the conditional release period should be included in this sentence.
In order to be sure that the sentence is accurately administered, we need to know exactly what the court intended.

The response to this letter, written by a law clerk for the district court, states, "By examining the transcript of the sentencing proceeding, I confirmed that [appellant] was sentenced to ten (10) years of conditional release on each count in addition to the sentences of incarceration and supervised ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.