Jason Rhoades, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0944

Jason Rhoades,
Appellant,

vs.

Jodi Harpstead, et al.,
Respondents,

Paul Schnell,
Respondent.

Filed February 16, 2021
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Carlton County District Court
File No. 09-CV-20-505

Jason Rhoades, Moose Lake, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

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

Anthony R. Noss, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondents Jodi
Harpstead and Nancy Ann Johnston); and

Kelly Kemp, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Paul Schnell)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Pres iding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin,
Judge.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
Jason Rhoades petitioned the di strict court for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge
the calculation of the expiration date of his ten-year term of conditional release. The district
court denied the petition. We conclude that the departme nt of corrections correctly
calculated the expiration date of Rhoades’s conditional-release term and, therefore, affirm.
FACTS
In March 2006, Rhoades pleaded guilty in Ramsey County to first-degree criminal
sexual conduct, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (2000), based on his
admission that he sexually abused a ste pdaughter between September 2001 and January
2002. The district court imposed a sentence of 158 months of imprisonment, to be followed
by a ten-year term of conditional release.
Shortly after Rhoades was sentenced, the department of corrections calculated that
Rhoades’s ten-year term of conditional releas e would expire on October 8, 2022. In
making that calculation, the department assu med that Rhoades would be released from
prison and placed on supervised release on October 8, 2012, after serving two-thirds of his
158-month sentence. In addition, the department assumed that Rhoades would
simultaneously be on supervised release and on conditional release.
In August 2012, the department performed a recalculation and determined that
Rhoades’s ten-year term of conditional rel ease would expire on February 27, 2027. In
making that calculation, the department assumed that Rhoades would complete his term of
supervised release before starting his ten-year term of conditional release.

3
Rhoades was released from prison and place d on supervised release on October 8,
2012. He completed his term of supervised release on February 27, 2017. On that date,
the department again performed a recalculati on and determined that Rhoades’s ten-year
term of conditional release would expire on Oc tober 8, 2022. The department arrived at
that date by giving Rhoades credit for the 1,602 days he was on supervised release.
In March 2020, Rhoades petitioned the Carlt on County District Court for a writ of
habeas corpus. In his pro se petition, he urged the district court to order the commissioner
to determine that his conditional-release te rm had expired on Oct ober 17, 2017. The
district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that the
department correctly determined in its most recent recalculation that Rhoades’s
conditional-release term will expire on October 8, 2022. Rhoades appeals.
DECISION
Rhoades argues that the district court erred by denying his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. In his pro se brief, he argues, in part, that the department improperly
determined that his ten-year term of conditi onal release will expire in 2027. But that
argument does not account for the department’s most recent determination that Rhoades’s
ten-year term of conditional release will expi re on October 8, 2022. Rhoades’s appellate
brief does not specify a particular date on which he believes his ten-year term of conditional
release should expire. To ensu re that Rhoades is not unlawfu lly restrained of his liberty,
we will review the department’s latest recalculation to determine whether it is correct. See
Minn. Stat. § 589.01 (2018); State v. Schnagl, 859 N.W.2d 297, 301-03 (Minn. 2015).

4
If a person is convicted of a felony offe nse and sentenced to prison, the person’s
sentence consists of a minimum term of imprisonment equal to two-thirds of the sentence
and a maximum supervised-release term equal to one-third of the sentence. Minn. Stat.
§ 244.101, subd. 1 (2018); State v. Schwartz, 628 N.W.2d 134, 139 (Minn. 2001). The
statute in effect at the time of Rhoades’s offense provides that, if a person has been
convicted of criminal sexual conduct a nd completes “the sentence imposed, the
commissioner . . . shall place the person on conditional release.” Minn. Stat. § 609.109,
subd. 7(a) (2000). If th e person has a prior conviction of criminal sexual conduct, “the
person shall be placed on conditional release for ten years, minus the time the person served
on supervised release.” Id.
We need not dwell on the r easons for the department’s ea rlier calculations of the
expiration date of Rhoades’s te rm of conditional release. The only relevant question is
whether the department’s latest calculation, which was performed after Rhoades completed
his term of supervised release, is correct. It is correct. The district court imposed a 158-
month sentence on Rhoades. Rhoades served tw o-thirds of that sentence in prison, until
October 8, 2012. He served the remaining one-third of that sentence (52-2/3 months, or
four years and four months an d 20 days) on supervised rele ase, until February 27, 2017.
On that date, Rhoades began serv ing his ten-year term of cond itional release. In its most
recent recalculation, the department subtracted from the ten-year period the 52-2/3 months
that Rhoades successfully served on supervised release, as required by the statute that
governs Rhoades’s sentence. See Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7(a) (2000). As a result of
that recalculation, Rhoades’s ten-year term of conditional release will expire on October 8,

5
2022. Rhoades’s pro se brief does not demonstrate that the department’s most recent
recalculation is incorrect.
Thus , the district court did not err by denying Rhoades’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.
Affirmed.