Opinion
No. C3-97-924.
Filed September 23, 1997.
Appeal from the District Court, Polk County, File No. KX911310.
John R. Chambers, (appellant pro se)
Hubert H. Humphrey III, State Attorney General, (for respondent)
Wayne H. Swanson, Polk County Attorney, Larry D. Orvik, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Harten, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. sec. 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief, John Chambers challenges the constitutionality of the Department of Corrections' work requirement and wage deduction policies. Because the postconviction remedy is only available for challenges to the validity of a conviction and sentencing, we affirm the denial of relief.
FACTS
A jury convicted John Chambers of second degree intentional murder. Chambers challenged his conviction on direct appeal and we affirmed. State v. Chambers , No. C3-92-2279 (Minn.App. Aug. 3, 1993). The supreme court accepted review and issued an opinion affirming the conviction. State v. Chambers , 507 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 1993). Chambers later filed a postconviction petition challenging his conviction and his sentence. The district court denied the petition and we affirmed the denial. State v. Chambers , No. C3-94-2240 (Minn.App. March 21, 1995).
In this second petition for postconviction relief, Chambers appeals the district court's denial of his petition without a hearing, arguing that the Department of Corrections' work requirement violates the Thirteenth Amendment and the wage deduction policy violates the Fifth Amendment.
DECISION
A person who has been convicted of a crime may petition for postconviction relief if "the conviction obtained or the sentence or other disposition made violate[s] the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the state." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (1996). A hearing on a postconviction petition is required only when facts are alleged that, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to relief. State ex rel. Roy v. Tahash , 277 Minn. 238, 245, 152 N.W.2d 301, 306 (1967).
Chambers does not, in this postconviction proceeding, allege constitutional violations in his conviction or sentence. Instead he alleges the unconstitutionality of a prison work requirement and a wage withholding policy. Postconviction relief is not available as a remedy for these claims. Rainer v. State , 566 N.W.2d 692, 696 (Minn. 1997) (restricting postconviction remedy to claims relating to conviction or sentence and specifically excluding Department of Corrections' wage withholding policy as a basis for postconviction relief); see also Thompson v. State , 284 Minn. 274, 277-78, 170 N.W.2d 101, 104 (1969) (the Postconviction Remedy Act was enacted to provide a postconviction remedy by which a defendant may attack the judgment of conviction). Rainer's holding is dispositive of Chambers' claims and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a hearing on the petition and the petition itself.