William Marcus Daniel Edwards, petitioner Appellant

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1263

William Marcus Daniel Edwards, petitioner
Appellant

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed June 24, 2019
Affirmed
Bratvold, Judge

Blue Earth County District Court
File No. 07-CR-12-4272

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public
Defender, Maria Mulvihill (certified student attorney), St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Patrick R. McDermott, Blue Earth County Attorney, Mankato, Minnesota; and

Scott A. Hersey, Special Assistant County Attorney, Minnesota County Attorneys
Association, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BRATVOLD, Judge
Appellant challenges the postconviction court’s denial of his motion to correct his
sentence, arguing that the sentencing court erred when it imposed a lifetime
conditional-release term. Because the sentencing court convicted appellant of two sex
offenses at the same hearing, one immediately af ter the other, appellant had a prior
sex-offense conviction when he was convicted of the second sex offense. Therefore, the
sentencing court lawfully ordered a lifetime conditional-release term, and we affirm.
FACTS
In October 2012, appellant William Marcus Daniel Edwards assaulted a 13-year-old
victim in the playground area of a park (October 2012 sex offense). In November 2012, he
assaulted a 12-year-old victim at his home (November 2012 sex offense). A police officer
spoke with the second victim, who stated that she had been raped at an apartment complex
in Lake Crystal by a 21-year-old male she only knew as “William.” The officer determined
that Edwards was the likely suspect and located him. Edwards confessed to having
intercourse with the victim five times on the night of November 13, 2012.
For the November 2012 sex offense, the state charged Ed wards with five counts of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (2012).
Approximately two months later, the state charged Edwards with six counts for the
October 2012 sex offense, including two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct

3
under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(e) (2012), one count of second-degree criminal sexual
conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(e) (2012), and three counts of third-degree
criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1 (2012).
Edwards, his counsel, and the state appeared for a plea hearing involving both
complaints. The parties agreed that Edwards would plead guilty to one count of
third-degree criminal sexual conduct for the October 2012 sex offense, and one amended
count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct for the November 2012 sex offense. All other
charges would be dismissed, and the state would recommend an executed sentence of 60
months for the November 2012 sex offense, and concurrent sentencing. Edwards’s attorney
stated that “[ i]t’s anticipated that Mr. Edwards will be subjected to the mandatory and
lifetime conditional release provisions, but that’s to be determined.” Edwards signed and
filed a rule 15 petition to enter a guilty plea. The petition, in relevant part, stated that the
period of conditional release is “LIFE (expected).”1
Under oath, Edwards pleaded guilty to count four (third-degree criminal sexual
conduct) for the October 2012 sex offense and amended count six (third-degree criminal
sexual conduct) for the November 2012 sex offense. Edwards also testified to a factual
basis for each offense. At the end of the plea hearing, the sentencing court “conditionally
accept[ed]” the plea petition, ordered a presentence investigation (PSI), and scheduled the
sentencing hearing.

1 Edwards’s rule 15 petition also stated that he anticipated being “subjected to the
mandatory lifetime conditional release provisions.”
4
The PSI report stated that Edwards’s presumptive sentence for the October 2012 sex
offense was a 36-month stay of execution, and his presumptive sentence for the November
2012 sex offense was 62 months in prison.
The parties appeared for a sentencing hearing in March 2013 ; unfortunately, no
transcript is available. 2 The limited record of the March hearing suggests that it included
some argument by both the state and defense counsel on the appropriate sentence and a
victim-impact statement, but then was rescheduled because of errors in the sentencing
guidelines worksheet.
The parties again appeared for a sentencing hearing in April 2013. The state
recommended a 60-month executed sentence for the November 2012 sex offense and the
guidelines sentence for the October 2012 sex offense. Edwards’s attorney relied on her
March 2013 argument and written memorandum, which requested a 60-month executed
sentence and a mandatory “10 year period of conditional release.” After Edwards made a
statement, the following exchange occurred:
The Court: Very well. Thank you sir. I think we covered this
at the last hearing, but I want to make sure that we look at it
again. Um, the—I’ll —my inclination is go along with the
agreement which would be at the sixty month range on [the
November 2012 sex offense] rather than the sixty-two—that’s
the middle of the—the middle of the grid.
On the [October 2012 sex offense], the thirty-six month
stay would be eaten up by the forty months [of custody] in the
other file if you want to execute that sentence. My minutes

2 Edwards’s appellate counsel attempted to order a transcript of the sentencing hearing, but
his request was returned by the court reporter with the comment, “no audio to
transcribe[]—[d]efective CD—unable to restore.” The sentencing court, prosecutor, and
defense counsel brief ly discussed the March 2013 hearing at the beginning of the April
2013 sentencing hearing.
5
from the last hearing indicated that you did want to execute that
but I just wanted to confirm that.

Edwards: That is correct.

The Court: Anything you want to put on the record?

The State: No, Your Honor.

(Emphasis added).

The sentencing court then stated the file number for the October 2012 sex offense
and imposed an executed sentence of 36 months. The court said to Edwards: “[t]he fact
that you are executing [the October 2012] sentence provides that the conditional release
statute would apply.” The sentencing court then ordered ten years of conditional release.
The sentencing court next stated the file number for the November 2012 sex offense,
imposed an executed sentence of 60 months concurrent with the October 2012 sex offense,
and ordered a “lifetime conditional release requirement.”
Almost five years later , Edwards moved to correct his sentence pursuant to Minn.
R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9. Edwards specifically requested that “the [postconviction] court
issue an order vacating [his] lifetime term of conditional release and resentence him to ten
years of conditional release pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 6.” Edwards argued
that he was “simultaneously adjudicated guilty of two counts of third-degree criminal
sexual conduct” and therefore he did not have a “previous or prior sex offense conviction”
as required for lifetime conditional release.
On June 7, 2018, the postconviction court denied Edwards’s motion. Edwards
appeals.
6
D E C I S I O N
Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, provides that a district
court “may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03,
subd. 9. “For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable
statutes.” Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016). This court reviews a district
court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Id.
The legislature has mandated that a district court place some dangerous sex
offenders on conditional release after release from prison. See Minn. Stat. § 609.3455
(2012).3 Relevant to Edwards’s sentences, when an offender is convicted of third-degree
criminal sexual conduct and is committed to the custody of the commissioner of
corrections, “the court shall provide that, after the offender has completed the sentence
imposed, the commissioner shall place the offender on conditional release for ten years.”
Id., subd. 6. When “the offender has a previous or prior sex offense conviction,” he is to
be placed “on conditional release for the remainder of [his] life” after being released from
prison. Id., subd. 7(b). A “prior sex offense conviction” has occurred if the offender “was
convicted of committing a sex offense before the offender has been convicted of the present
offense, regardless of whether the offender was convicted for the first offense before the

3 Conditional release is defined by statute. See id., subd. 8(a). The commissioner of
corrections is authorized to determine appropriate conditions of conditional release,
including completion of treatment and aftercare. If the offender fails to meet any condition
of release, the commissioner may revoke the offender’s conditional release and order that
the offender “serve all or a part of the remaining portion of the conditional release term in
prison.” Id., subd. 8(b) (2012). Finally, the commissioner cannot dismiss an offender from
supervision before the offender’s conditional-release term expires. Id., subd. 8(a).
7
commission of the present offense, and the convictions involved separate behavioral
incidents.” Id., subd. 1(g).
Both parties agree that the sentencing court convicted Edwards of two sex offenses
at the sentencing hearing, but they disagree about when, during the sentencing hearing, he
was convicted. Edwards primarily argues that he was “simultaneously adjudicated guilty
of multiple sex offenses during his sentencing hearing,” therefore, he “does not qualify for
lifetime conditi onal release” because he did not have a “prior or previous sex offense
conviction.”4 The state contends that “the [sentencing] court did not simultaneously accept
and adjudicate [Edwards] guilty of both . . . offenses.”
Minnesota statutes provide that a “[c]onviction” occurs when the district court
accepts and records “(1) a plea of guilty; or (2) a verdict of guilty by a jury or a finding of
guilty by the court.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 5 (2018). In State v. Nodes, the Minnesota
Supreme Court applied and clarified this definition in the context of the mandatory
conditional-release term. See 863 N.W.2d 77, 82 (Minn. 2015). Specifically, the supreme
court considered whether the first of two convictions entered at the same hearing, but

4 Edwards also argues in his brief to this court that if the sentencing court did not accept
and record his guilty pleas prior to sentencing, then the sentencing court “violated rule
15.04 by failing to otherwise accept or reject on the record the parties’ agreement,” and as
a result, Edwards was not convicted. But Edwards appeals on a motion to correct a
sentence, which does not now allow challenges to the underlying conviction. See
Washington v. State, 845 N.W.2d 205, 213 (Minn. App. 2014) (“[R]ule 27.03, subdivision
9, authorizes relief only if a party challenges a sentence, as opposed to a conviction, and
only if a party does so b y asserting that a sentence is ‘unauthorized by law’ . . . ”).
Moreover, Edwards did not present this issue to the postconviction court. Generally, we do
not consider issues that are raised for the first time on appeal. Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d
354, 357 (Minn. 1996). Therefore, to the extent that Edwards argues his underlying
conviction was unauthorized, this issue is not properly before us and we do not consider it.
8
arising from separate behavioral incidents, was a “prior sex offense,” triggering lifetime
conditional release. Id. The two convictions involved different victims on different days
and led to two counts charged in a single complaint. Id. at 78. At the plea hearing, the
district court expressly accepted the defendant’s guilty pleas on two counts of criminal
sexual conduct, but rejected the state’s position that the defendant was subject to lifetime
conditional release. Id. at 79. The district court reasoned that being sentenced on two
convictions “on the same day doesn’t get you the lifetime.” Id. Thus, the district court set
the conditional-release period at ten years for each conviction. Id. The state appealed, and
this court aff irmed the district court, concluding that the two convictions were
“simultaneous.” Id.
The supreme court granted review and reversed. Id. First, the supreme court found
that the district court expressly accepted and recorded the defendant’s guilty plea. Id. at 81.
Thus, the defendant was convicted of the first offense “at the moment the acceptance was
recorded.” Id. Second, the supreme court determined that the defendant’s first conviction
occurred before his second conviction. Id. at 82. When the district court announced on the
record that it had adjudicated the defendant guilty, “in that instant [the defendant] was
convicted of that [first] offense, and in the next instant, it was no longer a present offense,
but was now a past conviction.” Id. The supreme court held that section 609.3455 does not
require “a particular temporal gap between the convictions” and there is no reason why “a
conviction entered at the same hearing as a subsequent conviction cannot function as a
‘prior sex offense conviction.’” Id. Accordingly, the supreme court concluded that the
defendant was subject to lifetime conditional release. Id.
9
In denying Edwards’s motion to correct his sentence, the postconviction court
determined that “after conviction and sentencing were complete on the [October 2012 sex
offense],” the sentencing court convicted and sentenced Edwards on the November 2012
sex offense. The postconviction court concluded that Edwards “had a ‘ prior sex offense
conviction’ at the time he was convicted of the [November 2012 sex offense] and the
lifetime conditional release requirement applie[d].”
Edwards makes two challenges to the postconviction court’s reasoning, which we
discuss in turn. First, Edwards contends that a district court can only impose a sentence
“[u]pon conviction” under Minn. Stat. § 609.10, subd. 1(a) (2018). Edwards asserts that
sentencing cannot be a conviction because there must be a conviction before there is a
sentence. Edwards then argues that, although the sentencing court did not “expressly state”
that it was simultaneously accepting the plea agreement when it stated its inclination to do
so, “this does not mean the court did not implicitly do so.” The state appears to respond,
without citing relevant legal authority, that the sentencing court implicitly accepted the
pleas and convicted Edwards “of each offense when [it] separately and sequentially
sentenced him on each of the two counts.”
We are not persuaded by Edwards’s argument. Preliminarily, we observe that, at the
plea hearing, the sentencing court initially deferred acceptance of Edwards’s guilty pleas,
as a district court is permitted to do under Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.04, subd. 3 (providing a
court may postpone acceptance of a plea agreem ent until it has received a presentence
investigation). Importantly, our analysis of the sentencing court’s proceedings is governed
by Minnesota caselaw, which has held that “magic words” are not required to convict a
10
defendant. See State v. Jeffries, 806 N.W.2d 56, 63 (Minn. 2011). Our caselaw has
recognized that whether a conviction has occurred depends on the entire context of the
hearing. See, e.g., id. (limiting its holding to the facts of the case, and recognizing that
specific words, such as “convicted” or “I accept your plea,” will not “always result in a
conviction”).5
Here, the complete context of Edwards’s sentencing hearing shows that the
sentencing court accepted each guilty plea just before it imposed each sentence. The
sentencing court first told the parties that it had an “inclination” to accept the pleas. T he
court then inquired whether Edwards elected to execute the sentence on the October 2012
offense and asked the state if there was anything else to put on the record. The sentencing
court next imposed an executed sentence for each offense separately and sequentially, and,
for the November 2012 offense, imposed a lifetime conditional-release term. The full
context of the sentencing proceedings demonstrates that the district court convicted
Edwards in the “instant” before it imposed each sentence. See Nodes, 863 N.W.2d at 82.

5 Additionally, we are persuaded by federal appellate opinions, which have interpreted the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and held that, “[a] guilty plea may be explicitly or
implicitly accepted by a district court.” United States v. Arafat, 789 F.3d 839, 844 (8th Cir.
2015). “[W]hat matters ultimately is the language of the trial court and the context in which
it is used.” Id. (quoting United States v. Tyerman, 641 F.3d 936, 943 (8th Cir. 2011)).Where
our rules of procedure parallel federal rules, “federal cases interpreting the federal rule are
helpful and instructive but not necessarily controlling.” Patterson v. Wu Family Corp., 608
N.W.2d 863, 867 n.4 (Minn. 2000). The Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that
judicial consideration of plea agreements under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3) is “comparable”
to judicial consideration of plea agreements under the Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Wheeler v. State, 909 N.W.2d 558, 568 n.7 (Minn. 2018).
11
Second, Edwards argues that here, unlike in Nodes, the sentencing court
simultaneously convicted Edwards of both sex offenses when it stated that its “inclination
is [to] go along with the agreement.” Edwards relies on five unpublished cases from this
court where we determined there was a simultaneous conviction. “Unpublished opinions
are not precedential, but they may have persuasive value.” State v. Ellis-Strong, 899
N.W.2d 531, 537 (Minn. App. 2017) (citing Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016)).
Edwards argues that the most persuasive unpublished case is State v. Broehl. See
No. A16-0966, 2017 WL 2535681 (Minn. App. June 12, 2017) . In Broehl, the defendant
pleaded guilty to eight counts of criminal sexual conduct. Id. at *1. The district court did
not accept the guilty pleas until the sentencing hearing, when the district court stated, “I
am going to . . . adopt the recommendations here.” Id. The district court proceeded to
sentence the defendant on each offense, and imposed lifetime conditional-release terms for
two offenses. Id. On appeal, we determined that the district court erred because it accepted
all of “the pleas in total when the district court judge stated” that it was “going to . . . adopt
the recommendations.” Id. at *3. Because the convictions were all “accepted and entered”
simultaneously, there was never a “prior sex offense conviction,” and therefore no basis to
impose lifetime conditional release. Id.
Broehl and Edwards’s other unpublished cases are inapposite and not persuasive
because, in each of these cases, the district court expressly accepted the plea agreement or
expressly adjudicated the defendant guilty. 6 Here, the sentencing court did not expressly

6 In three other cases that Edwards cites, the district court used clear language to
simultaneously adjudicate the defendant guilty of multiple offenses. See State v. Ingalls ,
12
accept Edwards’s guilty pleas or expressly adjudicate his guilt. While this is not best
practice, it clearly differentiates Edwards’s sentencing from the sentencing considered in
Broehl.7
The sentencing court only stated that it had an “inclination” to go along with
Edwards’s plea agreement. An “inclination” is tentative and equivocal and suggests only a
disposition towards acceptance, not actual acceptance. See The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language 888 (5th ed. 2011) (defining “inclined” as “[h]aving a
preference, disposition or tendency”). After stating its inclination, the sentencing court
asked Edwards whether he wanted to execute the sentence on the October 2012 sex offense
instead of receiving the presumptive stayed sentence. Edwards responded affirmatively.
Only then did the sentencing court proceed to impose the sentences for each sex offense,
one after the other.

No. A16-1803, 2017 WL 5560033, at *7 (Minn. App. Nov. 20, 2017) (“You’re adjudicated
guilty.”); State v. Klanderud, No. A15- 1897, 2016 WL 6395252, at *5 (Minn. App. Oct.
31, 2016) (“Pleas are accepted. ”), review denied (Minn. Jan. 17, 2017); State v. Rekdal,
No. A14-1364, 2015 WL 7199866, at *1 (Minn. App. Nov. 16, 2015) (“I’m going to accept
your pleas of guilty on those offenses.”). In the fourth case, State v. Davidson, the parties
agreed that the district court entered convictions simultaneously . A17 -0149, 2018 WL
1370569, at *7 (Minn. App. Mar. 19, 2018).

7 The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure establish the correct procedure for a district
court to accept or reject a guilty plea. Under rule 15.04, once a defendant enters a plea, a
district court “must reject or accept the plea of guilty on the terms of the plea agreement.”
Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.04, subd. 3. Additionally, “[i]f the court rejects the plea agreement,
it must advise the parties in open court and then call upon the defendant to either affirm or
withdraw the plea.” Id.; see also State v. Thompson, 754 N.W.2d 352, 356 (Minn. 2008)
holding that the language of rule 15.04 “indicates the rule is mandatory”).
13
Because Edwards was convicted of the October 2012 sex offense before he was
convicted of the November 2012 sex offense, and the convictions involved separate
behavioral incidents, Edwards is subject to a lifetime conditional-release term. Thus, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Edwards’s motion to correct his
sentence.
Affirmed.