State v. Thompson

994 N.W.2d 554

STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Stafon Edward THOMPSON, Respondent.

A22-0192

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: August 30, 2023

Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Sarah J. Vokes, Mark V. Griffin, Assistant County Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.

Rachel Moran, University of Saint Thomas Legal Services Clinic, Ka Bao Jennrich, Ashley Fischer, Kimberly Meyer, Certified Student Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

OPINION

MOORE, III, Justice.

Appellant State of Minnesota argues that the Hennepin County District Court abused its discretion when it granted respondent Stafon Edward Thompson postconviction relief by ordering a substantive sentencing hearing. Thompson's postconviction petition requested a substantive sentencing hearing to consider whether Thompson's modified sentences of life in prison with the possibility of release should be served consecutively or concurrently. Irrespective of the district court's authority to order this relief, the unique circumstances of this case would warrant the exercise of this court's inherent supervisory powers to direct that the district court hold a substantive sentencing hearing in accordance with State v. Warren , 592 N.W.2d 440, 451–52 (Minn. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

In 2009, a jury found Stafon Edward Thompson guilty of two counts of first-degree murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2022) for the premeditated killings of Katricia Daniels and her 10-year-old son Robert Shepard. ¹ Thompson was 17 years old when he committed the offenses. At that time, Minnesota's sentencing statutes mandated that Thompson receive two sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release. See Minn. Stat. § 609.106, subd. 2(1) (2008). However, the district court had discretion in whether to impose the two mandatory sentences consecutively or concurrently. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F.2.b (2008).

The district court proceeded to sentencing immediately after the jury returned its verdicts, without ordering a presentence investigation report. Five family members provided victim impact statements to the court. Thompson's counsel made no argument on the issue of whether Thompson's sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently. The district court sentenced Thompson to two consecutive sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release. We affirmed Thompson's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Thompson (Thompson I ), 788 N.W.2d 485, 496 (Minn. 2010).

Thompson's co-defendant, Brian Flowers, was also convicted of two counts of premeditated murder under aiding and abetting theories of liability for the deaths of Daniels and Shepard. Flowers was 16 years old when he committed the offenses. Like Thompson, the district court sentenced Flowers to two consecutive sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release. We affirmed Flowers's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Flowers (Flowers I ), 788 N.W.2d 120, 134 (Minn. 2010).

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court announced in Miller v. Alabama that the mandatory imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for a juvenile offender violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 567 U.S. 460, 479, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). The following year, both Thompson and Flowers filed federal habeas corpus petitions challenging their mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release under the new constitutional rule of law announced in Miller . From here, the co-defendants’ cases took different paths.

In 2014, a federal district court judge granted Flowers's habeas petition, finding that Miller applied retroactively. Flowers v. Roy , No. CIV. 13-1508, 2014 WL 1757898, at *5–9 (D. Minn. May 1, 2014). The federal district court remanded Flowers's case to the state district court for resentencing without any limitations on the scope of the resentencing hearing. The state district court resentenced Flowers to two concurrent sentences of life in prison with the possibility of release after 30 years. ² In doing so, the district court determined that Miller and our decision in Jackson v. State , 883 N.W.2d 272, 281–82 (Minn. 2016), limited its discretion to impose the sentences consecutively. We reversed and remanded the case to the district court "to exercise its discretion to determine whether consecutive or concurrent sentences are appropriate." Flowers v. State (Flowers II ), 907 N.W.2d 901, 907–08 (Minn. 2018). Flowers's resentencing is currently proceeding in state district court.

The same year that Flowers's habeas petition was granted, a different federal district court judge denied Thompson's habeas petition based on its conclusion that Miller did not apply retroactively. Thompson v. Roy , No. 13-CV-1524, 2014 WL 1234498, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2014), aff'd , 793 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, judgment vacated , 577 U.S. 1188, 136 S.Ct. 1375, 194 L.Ed.2d 355 (2016). While Thompson's appeal was working its way through the federal court system, the U.S. Supreme Court announced in Montgomery v. Louisiana that its holding in Miller is a new substantive rule of constitutional law that must be applied retroactively. 577 U.S. 190, 206, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016). In light of Montgomery , the federal district court vacated the "without possibility of release" provision of Thompson's sentence and remanded to the state district court for resentencing. Thompson v. Roy , No. 13-CV-1524, 2016 WL 7231599, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 14, 2016). The state district court resentenced Thompson to two consecutive sentences of life in prison with the possibility of release after 30 years. The state district court did not hold a hearing on the issue of whether Thompson's sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently because it determined that the remand from federal court was limited to the "without possibility of release" provisions of the sentences.

On appeal, we affirmed the district court's conclusions regarding the limited remand from federal court. State v. Thompson (Thompson II ), 942 N.W.2d 350, 354–55 (Minn. 2020). Specifically, we determined that because "the remand order was limited to the singular issue of the possibility of release ... the district court's limited revision of the sentences from [life in prison without the possibility of release] to life with the possibility of release after 30 years—without reconsidering the issue of whether the sentences should be consecutive—was not an abuse of discretion." Id. We specifically noted that "[t]he substantive issue of whether Thompson's consecutive sentences are commensurate with his culpability and criminality under the standard articulated in State v. Warren , 592 N.W.2d 440, 451–52 (Minn. 1999), is not properly before us." ³ Id. at 355 n.5. But we also noted that "[n]othing in our decision today forecloses Thompson from seeking otherwise available relief under the Minnesota postconviction statute, Minn. Stat. § 590.01." Id.

In February 2021, Thompson filed a postconviction petition. His petition requested a substantive sentencing hearing to consider whether, pursuant to the test articulated in Warren , 592 N.W.2d at 451–52, his modified sentences of life in prison with the possibility of release after 30 years should be served concurrently rather than consecutively. Thompson argued that the failure to hold such a hearing violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and procedural due process. In its answer, the State wrote:

The fact that [Thompson] is the only convicted juvenile multiple murderer who has never been able to offer arguments about his consecutive sentences clearly implicates his rights to Equal Protection and Due Process. The legal mechanism to protect these rights is a postconviction petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590. If petitioner complies with the requirements under § 590 he is entitled to a review of his sentence.

(Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)

In an order filed on December 14, 2021, the district court granted Thompson's postconviction petition. The court determined that the 2-year time bar in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2022), did not start to run until March 26, 2019—the date Thompson's corrected sentences of life with the possibility of release after 30 years were imposed. The district court reasoned that the time bar began on this date because Thompson's postconviction petition focused on his sentences, not his convictions. The district court therefore concluded that Thompson's postconviction petition was timely.

As for the procedural bar articulated in State v. Knaffla , 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976), the district court determined that the facts of Thompson's case satisfied the two exceptions for claims that should have been known, but were not raised, in an earlier proceeding. ⁴ More specifically, the court determined that Thompson's postconviction petition raised a claim that presented a novel legal issue that was unavailable at the time of his direct appeal because the consecutive sentences "only carried legal significance" after Thompson's sentences were changed to life with the possibility of release after 30 years in accordance with the rule announced in Montgomery , 577 U.S. at 206, 136 S.Ct. 718. The district court also concluded that "it is not in the interest of justice or judicial efficiency to expect a defendant to raise every issue in their initial appeal that may only take on legal significance down the road."

In addition to concluding that Thompson properly pled his case under section 590.01 by filing a timely postconviction petition, which raised claims that were not procedurally barred under Knaffla , the district court also considered Thompson's equal protection and...