An Undefined Reference in a Complaint to a Conditional Release Term Is Not Sufficient Notice of The Requirement For That Conditional Release Term

Kubrom v. State, Minn.Ct.App., 4/6/2015.  The state charged Mr. Kubrom with first degree driving while impaired.  But that’s not what the case is about.  It’s about the conditional release term that accompanies a conviction for that charge.  Mr. Kubrom cut a deal with the state for a definite term sentence, none of this “Guidelines sentence” stuff.  The rest of the deal was for a concurrent sentence and a recommendation from the trial judge for boot camp.  Mr. Kubrom pled guilty under that deal and the court sentenced him the same day.  Neither during the plea nor the sentencing that immediately followed the plea did anyone say anything about that conditional release term.

Mr. Kubrom served his sentence – all of it – and got out.  Only then did the trial court amend the sentence to include that conditional release term.  Mr. Kubrom, when he finally found out about it, cried foul and filed a post conviction petition, asking either to be allowed to withdraw his plea or have the sentence amended to conform to the original agreement.  The court denied the petition.

Mr. Kubrom said that because no one told him about the conditional release term before he pled guilty and was sentenced the district court improperly denied his petition.  The state countered that because the complaint described the penalty for first degree DWI as “3-7 years and/or $4,200-$14,000 plus a conditional release term” that was notice enough.   This one goes to Mr. Kubrom; the court of appeals was unwilling to hold that this general statement regarding a conditional release term, standing alone, was sufficient notice.  This was because this description specified neither the length of the applicable conditional release term nor that it was mandatory.

The rest is easy.  Mr. Kubrom bargained for a maximum sentence:  forty-six months.  The district court agreed to honor that bargain by its acceptance of the plea.  Due process thus requires that the deal be fulfilled.  State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 2003).  Oldenburg v. State, 763 N.W.2d 655 (Minn.Ct.App. 2009).  The problem, now, of course, is that the deal amounts to an unauthorized sentence, and now to add the conditional release term would violate the plea agreement.  Mr. Kubrom must be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea.  The state can simultaneously argue that to permit that would unduly prejudice the prosecution.  If that’s true, it remains to be seen what is an appropriate remedy.