Mille Lacs County District Court File No. 48-CR-08-1964
Charles Todd Bragg, Bayport, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Janice S. Jude, Mille Lacs County Attorney, Melissa M. Saterbak, Assistant County Attorney, Milaca, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Chutich, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief and his motion to correct sentencing. We affirm.
In February 2009, a jury found appellant Charles Todd Bragg guilty of eight counts of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving his then 15- and 16-year-old daughters. The district court sentenced Bragg to 360 months in prison. On December 21, 2010, this court affirmed Bragg's convictions. State v. Bragg, No. A09-2319, 2010 WL 5154137 (Minn.App. Dec. 21, 2010), review denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 2011).
On October 15, 2012, Bragg filed several motions in the district court, including a "Motion to Amend or Reconsider Due to False Documents and/or Statements, " "Motion to Dismiss for Plain Error, " "Motion to Suppress, " "Motion to Correct Sentencing, " "Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, " as well as a "Petition for Post-Conviction Relief."
The district court concluded that most of Bragg's postconviction claims were Knaffla-barred and denied his petition for postconviction relief and an evidentiary hearing in a written order dated January 14, 2013. The district court denied Bragg's motion to correct his sentence in a separate order dated January 15, after addressing the merits of his sentencing arguments including double-jeopardy, sentencing-guidelines, and cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims, as well as arguments under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.035, .04 (2012). The district court denied Bragg's other motions in a third order. Bragg appeals from all three orders, but provides arguments related only to the January 14 order denying his petition for postconviction relief and the January 15 order denying his motion to correct his sentence.
We review the postconviction court's findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. State v. Finnegan, 784 N.W.2d 243, 247 (Minn. 2010). We will not disturb the district court's denial of postconviction relief absent an abuse of ...