Cited by

But it is “limited to sentences”: a proper rule 27.03 motion must allege that a sentence is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

(noting that our standard of review in this context is “arguably de 10 Under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, “[t]he court may at any time correct a sentence not authorize

Under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, “[t]he court may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” “For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

5 “A sentence is not authorized by law when it is ‘contrary to law or applicable statutes.’ ” ( 5 Sanders also argues that the district court erred by construing his motion to correct a sentence as a petition for postconviction relief.

(“[A]n offender on supervised or conditional release remains ‘in the legal custody and under the control of’ the Commissioner of Corrections.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 243.05, subd.

Under this rule, a district court “may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” A sentence is unauthorized by law if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

6 “Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted).

(stating that Minn. R. Crim.

“Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” (quotation omitted).

B. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction “Subject matter jurisdiction is a court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” (quotation omitted).

First, he argues that he was coerced in to admitting the DOC disciplinary violations by being held in segregation, which led to “sleep deprivation,” “near starvation,” “irritability, and memory loss.” But, as mentioned above, Braun’s arguments about the DOC’s -04 (Minn. 2015) (holding that a writ of habeas corpus is the proper method for judicial review of decisions by the commissioner of corrections in administering a prisoner’s sentence).

A sentence is not authorized by law when it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.” State v. Schnagl, 5

A sentence is not authorized by law if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

A sentence is not authorized by law if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

A sentence is unauthorized when it is “cont rary to law or applicable statutes.”

9, if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

A sentence is unauthorized when it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

“For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

22 The principle that habeas relief is not av ailable when there is an adequate remedy at law is neither novel nor unique to Minnesota.

A habeas petition is an appropriat e means by which an incarcerated person may “obtain relief regarding the custody imposed, or the length of confinement in a given case.”

See Minn. Stat. § 589.01 (2018); -03 (Minn. 2015).

See State v. Coles , (“Because Coles’ challenge to his sentence implicates more than simply his sentence, we conclude that it is properly viewed as a petition for postconviction relief under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, not as a motion to correct 6 it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

A sentence is not authorized by law if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

A sentence is not authorized by law if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.” State v. Schnagl

“For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

d 271, 275 (Minn. 2016) (considering a request for relief via habeas corpus that challenged the Department’s calculation of a conditional-release term without asserting a constitutional violation); (stating that “judicial review of the Commissioner’s administrative decision implementing the sentence imposed may be obtained by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which th e Commissioner is a named party”).

State v. Schnagl , , 301 (Minn. 2015).

State v. Schnagl , , 301 (Minn. 2015).

Bissell argues that under State v. Schnagl , “an offender’s conditional -release term i s not part of the district court’s sentence.” But the supreme court in Schnagl made no such holding.

“[T]he function of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve one from unlawful restraint.” State v. Schnagl , (quotation omitted).

While “[r]ule 27 authorizes the district court to correct an illegal sentence at any time,” d 297, 301 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted), “[n]o petition for postconviction relief may be filed more than two years afte r .

(“The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy available to a confined person to obtain relief regarding the custody imposed, or the length of confinement in a given case.”).

D E C I S I O N “The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy available to a confined person to obtain relief regarding the custody imposed, or the length of confinement in a given case.” see also Minn. Const. art. I, § 7 (“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shal l not be suspended unle ss the public safety requires it in case of rebelli on or invasion.”); Minn. Stat .

A habeas petitioner may bring “ claims involving fundamental constitutional rights and significant restraints on [the petitioner’s] liberty or to challenge the conditions of confinement.” Guth, d at 26–27; (stating that habeas petitioner may challenge DOC decisions regarding parole revocation).

(describing the standard under Minn. R. Crim.