Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A08-917 Ramsey County Meyer, J.

Michael Charles Stewart, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Michael Charles Stewart, Bayport, Minnesota, pro se appellant. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark N. Lystig, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS Petitioner's claim for postconviction relief is denied. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument. OPINION MEYER, Justice. Michael Charles Stewart filed a petition for postconviction relief in April 2008. The postconviction court denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. 1 Filed: April 16, 2009 Office of Appellate Courts

On October 14, 1999, a Ramsey County jury convicted Stewart of first- and second-degree murder of his son, and of first-degree manslaughter (heat of passion) of his son's mother and her unborn child. The district court sentenced Stewart to two

consecutive 86-month sentences for the manslaughter convictions, and another consecutive sentence of life in prison for the first-degree murder conviction.1 Stewart filed a direct appeal to this court, with the assistance of appellate counsel, on the issue of whether Stewart should have been allowed a jury instruction on heat-ofpassion manslaughter with respect to the killing of his son. State v. Stewart, 624 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Minn. 2001). On April 19, 2001, we affirmed the district court, concluding that the court had not erred in denying the requested heat-of-passion instruction. Id. at 591. Stewart, again with appellate counsel assistance, filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the district court had violated Stewart's right to equal protection and due process by denying the manslaughter jury instruction. The postconviction court denied the motion, finding that the propriety of the jury instructions had already been decided on direct appeal. Stewart filed a notice of appeal from that decision, but filed nothing further. We dismissed the appeal for inactivity. On April 30, 2008, Stewart filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief. Stewart requested that the second postconviction court dismiss the charges for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Stewart asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction because the

1

Further details regarding the events surrounding Stewart's crimes and convictions can be found in our decision on direct appeal, State v. Stewart, 624 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. 2001).

2

offenses of which he was convicted do not have all constitutionally-required components, as published in the Minnesota Statutes, and are therefore invalid laws. In an order dated May 15, 2008, the second postconviction court summarily denied the requested relief, finding that the petition was untimely, and that even if the claims were not time-barred, they did not have merit. Stewart filed a notice of appeal, which we, by an order, construed as appealing the May 15, 2008, denial of Stewart's pro se petition. An incarcerated individual may petition for postconviction relief if he alleges that his imprisonment violates his rights under state or federal law. Minn. Stat.

Download A08-917, Michael Charles Stewart, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota,

Minnesota Law