David Richard Carlson, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0813

David Richard Carlson, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed November 19, 2018
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-CR-05-2261

David R. Carlson, Duluth, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Gary W. Bjorklund, Assistant County Attorney,
Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge ; Larkin, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant, pro se, challenges the district court’s denial of appellant’s request to
correct his sentence, arguing that the conditional release term is unconstitutional and that
his incarceration was erroneously extended for 45 days. Because the district court correctly
concluded that it is not the proper forum in which to challenge the revocation of supervised-
release status and because this court has previously determined that a term of conditional
release violates neither due process nor double jeopardy, we affirm.
FACTS
In 2004, appellant David Richard Carlson approached S.M.C., then 13, with whom
he was acquainted, and offered her a ride home, which she accepted. He drove her to a
deserted area, forced her to perform fellatio on him, gave her $45, and dropped her off near
her home. Afte r she reported the incident to her school lia ison officer, appellant was
charged with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, two counts of third-degree
criminal sexual conduct, one count of soliciting a child to engage in sexual conduct, and
one count of terroristic threats. Following a jury trial, h e was acquitted of the terroristic -
threats charge and convicted of the four criminal -sexual-conduct charges . The district
court subsequently acquitted him of first -degree criminal sexual conduct; the state
appealed, and his acquittal was reversed. State v. Carlson , No. A06-0961 (Minn. App.
Apr. 10, 2007) (reversing the acquittal), review denied (Minn. June 27, 2007) (Carlson I).
In 2007 appellant was sentenced to 144 months in prison with a ten -year
conditional-release term. He appealed, and his conviction was affirmed. State v. Carlson,

3
No. A07 -2144 (Minn. App. Feb. 10, 2009) (affirming appellant’s conviction) , review
denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2009) (Carlson II). The district court later reduced the conditional-
release term to five years because of the law in effect at the time of appellant’s offense.
Appellant subsequently filed numerous petitions for postconviction relief , which
have all been denied, and the denials have been affirmed on appeal. See, e.g., Carlson v.
State, No. A17 -1152 (Minn. App. Feb. 2, 2018), review denied (Minn. Mar. 20, 2018)
(order op.) (Carlson VII); Carlson v. State, No. A15-1388, 2016 WL 1397206 (Minn. App.
Apr. 11, 2016), review denied, (Minn. July 19, 2016) (Carlson VI); Carlson v. State, No.
A13-1391 (Minn. App. Mar. 31, 2014), review denied (Minn. May 28, 2014) (Carlson V);
Carlson v. State, No. A12-0394 (Minn. App. Nov. 13, 2012), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15,
2013) (Carlson IV); and Carlson v. State, No. A09-1558 (Minn. App. Jan. 25, 2010) (order
op.), review denied (Minn. Apr. 20, 2010) (Carlson III).
He now challenges the denial without a hearing of another petition for
postconviction relief and argues that the conditional -release term of his sentence violates
his due-process and double-jeopardy rights.1
D E C I S I O N
1. Denial of petition
The district court found that appellant “appears to seek a correction of sentence . . .
claiming a constitutional violation related to conditional release” and that he “claims he

1 Appellant also argues that his conviction should be overturned, but provides neither
support for this argument nor an explanation of why this court should again address that
issue.

4
served an additional 45 days of confinement due to an alleged refusal of treatment.” The
district court concluded that appellant was asking it to address an administrative decision
made by the Department of Corrections, which is outside a district cour t’s jurisdiction.
This is not the first time appellant has made such a request. See Carlson VI , 2016 W L
1397206, at *3 (noting that “t he district court is not the proper forum to challenge the
revocation of [appellant’s] supervised -release status becaus e it is an administrative
decision under the purview of the Minnesota Department of Corrections” and “parole
revocation is not within the district court’s original jurisdiction”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s petition without
a hearing.
2. Violations of double jeopardy and due process
Whether the government has violated procedural due-process rights is a question of
law that an appellate court reviews de novo. State v. Rey , 905 N.W.2d 490, 495 (Minn.
2018). This court reviews double -jeopardy claims de novo. State v. Leroy, 604 N.W.2d
75, 77 (Minn. 1999).
A term of conditional release has been held to violate neither due process nor double
jeopardy. Maiers v. Roy , 847 N.W. 2d 524, 530 -31 (Minn. App. 2014) , review denied
(Minn. Aug. 19, 2014). Maiers involved a sentence with a statutory maximum of seven
years and, like appellant’s sentence, a mandatory five -year conditional-release term. Id.
“The five-year conditional-release term is a mandatory aspect of the sentence to be imposed
by the district court. Therefore, the maximum sentence for appellant’s offense is seven

5
years plus the term of conditional release. We conclude that appellant’s sentence does not
violate due process guarantees.” Id. at 531 (quotation and citation omitted).
Maiers also rejects appellant’s argument that “[the] conditional -release term
constitutes a second punishment for a single . . . offense.” Id.. At the time of appellant’s
offense, Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 6 (2004), provided a mandatory conditional-release
term of five years. “When the punishment imposed is mandatory at the time of sentencing,
there is no double -jeopardy violation. Moreover, an imposition of a conditional -release
term does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Id. (citations omitted).
Appellant was not entitled to a hearing or to postconviction relief, and the
conditional-release term does not violate double jeopardy or due process.
Affirmed.