Daniel Lee McMaster, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1325

Daniel Lee McMaster, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed April 15, 2019
Affirmed
Kirk, Judge*

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-15-16852

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, F. Richard Gallo, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KIRK, Judge
Appellant appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief seeking
withdrawal of his guilty plea as timely to correct a manifest injustice. Because the district
court properly dismissed the petition as untimely under Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550
(Minn. 2012), we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore,
affirm.
FACTS
On June 23, 2015, a ppellant was charged with one count of third degree criminal
sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(c) (2014).1 Appellant entered
into a plea agreement with the state. A pre-plea investigation recommended a presumptive
execution of a 48-month prison sentence and lifetime registration as a predatory offender;
the plea agreement, however, included a dispositional departure with a 57 -month stay of
execution sentence for ten years with a ten-year registration requirement.2
On November 30, 2015, appellant appeared for a plea hearing. Counsel
acknowledged the terms of the plea agreement. The state disagreed—and represented that
appellant’s trial counsel also disagreed—with the pre-plea investigation that the predatory
offender registration was lifetime. Counsel, instead, believed the registration requirement

1 Chapter 609.344, subd. 1 was amended on May 16, 2014. 2014 Minn. Laws ch. 259, § 5
(amending Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1 (2012)).

2 The applicable guideline range was a 41 to 57 month term of imprisonment.

3
would be a ten-year term. The district court accepted a ppellant’s plea and foll owed the
terms of the agreement identifying the ten-year registration term.
On June 30, 2017, a ppellant appeared on a p robation violation. The district court
found that appellant failed to follow the conditions of his probation on three occasions and
that appellant’s “pattern of failure coupled with his stated refusal to come to grips with his
chemical dependency issues m ake it impossible to deal with his most fundamental
probation goal—sex offender treatment.” The district court revoked appellant’s probation
and committed him to the commissioner of corrections for a period of 57 months. Neither
party nor the district court raised the predatory offender registration obligation at the time
of the hearing.
On April 27, 2018 , appellant filed a p etition for postconviction relief. Appellant
asserted the state promised a limited predatory offender registr ation of ten years contrary
to the statutory lifetime requirement. Appellant argued the “guilty plea was induced by [a]
false promise” and he requested to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the petition
as time-barred.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
This court reviews a district court’s denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of
discretion. Brown v. State , 863 N.W.2d 781, 786 (Minn. 2015). “We will reverse a
postconviction court only if it ‘exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner,
based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual

4
findings.’” Wayne v. State, 912 N.W.2d 633, 639 (Minn. 2018) (quoting Reed v. State, 793
N.W.2d 725, 729 (Minn. 2010)).
A petition for postconvicti on relief may not be filed more than two years after
“(1) the entry of judgment of conviction or sentence if no direct appeal is filed; or (2) an
appellate court’s disposition of petitioner’s direct appeal.” Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)
(2018). An ot herwise untimely postconviction petition may be permitted in certain
contexts. Id., subd. 4(b)(1) -(5) (2018) ( identifying enumerated grounds for permitting
untimely postconviction relief petitions).
The district court sentenced appellant on November 30, 2015, to a stay of execution
following his guilty plea, and he did not appeal his conviction. Appellant argue s he was
not sentenced until June 30, 2017 , when the district court revoked his probation and
executed his sentence . T his argument is unfounded. Minn. Stat. §§ 244.10, subd. 1 ,
609.10, 609.13, 609.135 (2014); Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03 subds. 4, 5 , 8 (requiring under
subdivision 5 the district court inform a defendant of his or her right to appeal at the time
the sentence is imposed and the execution is stayed).
The district court accepts and records a finding of guilt when it imposes a stay of
execution and, even if the offender successfully completes probation and is discharged, the
offender’s record includes a felony conv iction. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 1.B.19.b (2014) .
A criminal defendant must appeal within 90 days from final judgment, which “occurs when
the district court enters a judgment of conviction and imposes or stays a sentence.” Minn.
R. Crim. P. 28.02, subds. 2(1), 4(3)(a). Because appellant was sentenced on November 30,
2015—and he did not appeal —his conviction became final on February 2 9, 2016.

5
See Minn. R. Crim. P. 34.01. Accordingly, appellant does not meet the two-year timeframe
for filing the petition for postconviction relief from his sentence.
Because the petition was filed more than two years after the time for direct appeal
expired, appellant argues that this court may consider the merits of the petition under the
interests-of-justice exception under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd . 4(b)(5). The interests-of-
justice exception provides that a petition may be heard if “ the petitioner establishes to the
satisfaction of the court that the petition is not frivolous and is in the interests of justice. ”
Id. A petition is frivolous under the interest s-of-justice exception when it is apparent —
without argument—the petition lacks merit. Brocks v. State, 883 N.W.2d 602, 605 (Minn.
2016).
A postconviction relief petition filed under the interest s-of-justice exception “must
be filed within two years of the date the claim arises.” M inn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c)
(2018). “[T]he interest s-of-justice exception is triggered by an injustice that caused the
petitioner to miss the primary deadline in subdivision 4(a), not the substance of the
petition.” Sanchez, 816 N.W.2d at 557. Further,
When the only injustice claimed is identical to the substance of
the petition, and the substance of the petition is based on
something that happened before or at the time a convic tion
became final, the injustice simply cannot have caused the
petitioner to miss the 2-year time limit in subdivision 4(a), and
therefore is not the type of injustice contemplated by the
interests-of-justice exception in subdivision 4(b)(5).
Id. A claim arises under section 590.01, subdivision 4(b)(5) when “the petitioner knew or
should have known that he [or she] had a claim.” Id. at 560. The moment a claim under
the interests-of-justice exception arises is a question of fact. Id.

6
Here, appellant missed the primary deadline to file his postconviction relief petition
based on the incorrect representations that his predatory offender registration would only
be a ten-year term rather than lifetime. Appellant, on the record provided, appeared to only
learn about the incorrect nature of the registration term when he sought review of his
probation violation with the assistance of the state public defender’s office after the
probation revocation. Although appellant learned this information late, the injusti ce he
claims is identical to the substance of his claim. Accordingly, appellant’s claim fails to
meet the requirements under the interest s-of-justice exception to permit postconviction
relief.3
Affirmed.

3 We offer no opinion on the length of the predatory offender registration applicable in this
matter. See Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subds. 1b(a)(1)(iii), 2, 6(d)(3) (2014).