Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1400 Gary Allen Kachina, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Filed February 12, 2008 Affirmed Toussaint, Chief Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 04030928 Gary Allen Kachina, 4439 Monroe Street Northeast, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (pro se appellant) Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael K. Walz, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Ross, Judge. SYLLABUS The Minnesota Department of Corrections has authority to determine the conditions of supervised release, including assigning an offender to intensive supervised release, and such a determination does not infringe on the district court's sentencing

authority. OPINION TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Gary Allen Kachina has filed a petition for a writ of prohibition challenging the district court's denial of his motion to correct his sentence. By order filed August 14, 2007, this court construed the petition as a notice of appeal because the district court's order denying the motion is an appealable order. Because we conclude that the action of the department of corrections (DOC) in assigning appellant to intensive supervised release upon his supervised release is not an improper modification of his sentence, we affirm. FACTS Appellant was sentenced in October 2004 to 53 months in prison for first-degree burglary. The DOC developed a release plan for appellant under which he would be placed in a halfway house and assigned to intensive supervised release upon his supervised release. Appellant filed a motion to correct his "sentence" by removing the requirement that he comply with intensive supervised release. The district court,

construing the motion as a postconviction petition, denied relief, concluding that the DOC had authority to impose the special conditions of intensive supervised release and that those conditions did not alter the sentence imposed by the sentencing court. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with this court, which we have construed as a notice of appeal from an appealable postconviction order. See State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759, 764 (Minn. 1999).

2

ISSUE Did the DOC exceed its authority, or infringe on the sentencing authority of the court, by directing that appellant be assignedto intensive supervised release upon his supervised release from prison? ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the DOC's decision to place him on intensive supervised release and impose special conditions of release when he is eligible for supervised release was an unauthorized modification of his sentence. See State v. Henderson, 527 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Minn. 1995) (holding that placement of probationer in special supervision program as condition of his probation was "intermediate sanction" that county corrections department did not have authority to impose). This court reviews a postconviction order to determine whether it is supported by sufficient evidence in the record. See Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 251 (Minn. 2001). The postconviction court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. See id. But appellant presents a legal issue, which is subject to de novo review. See Butala v. State, 664 N.W.2d 333, 338 (Minn. 2003). Intensive supervised release is an intensive supervision program that the DOC is authorized to impose for "all or part of" the supervised release period. Minn. Stat.

Download A07-1400, Gary Allen Kachina, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Res

Minnesota Law