An Act To Amend Statutory Post-conviction Review
Sec. 1. 15 MRSA §2121, sub-§1, as amended by PL 1995, c. 286, §2, is further amended to read:
Sec. 2. 15 MRSA §2121, sub-§1-A, as amended by PL 2003, c. 29, §1, is further amended to read:
Sec. 3. 15 MRSA §2121, sub-§2, as amended by PL 1997, c. 464, §1, is further amended to read:
Sec. 4. 15 MRSA §2122, as amended by PL 1997, c. 399, §1, is further amended to read:
§ 2122. Purpose
This chapter provides a comprehensive and, except for direct appeals from a criminal judgment, the exclusive method of review of those criminal judgments and of post-sentencing proceedings occurring during the course of sentences. It is a remedy for illegal restraint and other impediments specified in section 2124 that have occurred directly or indirectly as a result of an illegal criminal judgment or post-sentencing proceeding. It replaces the remedies available pursuant to post-conviction habeas corpus, to the extent that review of a criminal conviction or proceedings are were reviewable, the remedies available pursuant to common law habeas corpus, including habeas corpus as recognized in Title 14, sections 5501 and 5509 to 5546, coram nobis, audita querela, writ of error, declaratory judgment and any other previous common law or statutory method of review, except appeal of a judgment of conviction or juvenile adjudication and remedies that are incidental to proceedings in the trial court. The substantive extent of the remedy of post-conviction review is defined in this chapter and not defined in the remedies that it replaces; provided that this chapter provides and is construed to provide relief for those persons required to use this chapter as required by the Constitution of Maine, Article 1 I, Section 10.
Sec. 5. 15 MRSA §2123, sub-§2, as amended by PL 1983, c. 816, Pt. B, §4, is further amended to read:
Sec. 6. 15 MRSA §2123-A is enacted to read:
§ 2123-A. Method of review for administrative actions not included in the definition of "post-sentencing proceeding"
Remedial relief from administrative actions occurring during the course of and pursuant to the operation of a sentence that affects whether there is incarceration or its length that are not included in the definition of "post-sentencing proceeding" in section 2121, subsection 2 is exclusively provided by Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 7.
Sec. 7. 15 MRSA §2124, as amended by PL 2001, c. 354, §3 and PL 2003, c. 689, Pt. B, §7, is further amended to read:
§ 2124. Jurisdictional prerequisites of restraint or impediment
An action for post-conviction review of a criminal judgment of this State or of a post-sentencing proceeding following the criminal judgment may be brought if the person seeking relief demonstrates that the challenged criminal judgment or post-sentencing proceeding is causing a present restraint or other specified impediment as described in subsections 1 to 3:
A claim for postconviction review is not allowed under this subsection relative to any court proceeding or administrative action that affects release or discharge pursuant to section 104-A;
(1) The subsequent crime, as enhanced, is, in the case of a crime in this State, punishable by incarceration of one year or more or, in the case of a crime in another jurisdiction, is a felony or an infamous crime; and
(2) If a sentence for the subsequent crime has been imposed, the length of that sentence actually exceeds the amount of incarceration which could have been imposed for the subsequent crime had its potential penalty not been enhanced by the challenged criminal judgment; or
Sec. 8. 15 MRSA §2125, as amended by PL 1981, c. 238, §2, is further amended to read:
§ 2125. Ground for relief
A person who satisfies the prerequisites of section 2124 may show that the challenged criminal judgment or sentence is unlawful or unlawfully imposed, or that the impediment resulting from the challenged post-sentencing procedure proceeding is unlawful, as a result of any error or ground for relief, whether or not of record, unless the error is harmless or unless relief is unavailable for a reason provided in section 2126 or 2128.
Sec. 9. 15 MRSA §2128, as amended by PL 1997, c. 399, §§3 and 4 and affected by §5, is further amended to read:
§ 2128. Waiver of grounds for relief
A person under restraint or impediment specified in section 2124 shall demonstrate that any ground of relief is has not unavailable on the basis of waiver as described in subsections 1 to 5 been waived. The bases of waiver are as follows.
The time during which a properly filed petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to the same criminal judgment is pending is not counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
Sec. 10. 15 MRSA §2128-A is enacted to read:
§ 2128-A. Exceptions to waiver
The assertion of a right under the Constitution of the United States may not be held waived by its nonassertion at trial or on appeal if the assertion of the right would be held not waived in a federal habeas corpus proceeding brought by the convicted or adjudicated person pursuant to 28 United States Code, Sections 2241 to 2254.
Sec. 11. 15 MRSA §2128-B is enacted to read:
§ 2128-B. Time for filing
The following filing deadlines apply.
The time during which a properly filed petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to the same criminal judgment is pending is not counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
Sec. 12. 15 MRSA §2129, sub-§4, as repealed and replaced by PL 1981, c. 238, §5, is amended to read:
Sec. 13. 15 MRSA §2138, sub-§12, as enacted by PL 2001, c. 469, §1, is amended to read:
A person who has initiated a collateral attack upon the judgment of conviction under chapter 305-A is not precluded from utilizing the remedy of this chapter while that post-conviction review proceeding is pending, provided that as long as resolution of the motion is automatically stayed pending final disposition of the post-conviction review proceeding unless the assigned justice or judge in the post-conviction review proceeding otherwise directs.
Sec. 14. Application. If the date of the filing of the final judgment in the court proceeding or administrative action under the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 15, section 2124, subsection 2 occurred prior to the effective date of this Act, the one-year limitation period under Title 15, section 2128-B, subsection 3 runs from the effective date of this Act.
Summary
This bill is proposed by the Criminal Law Advisory Commission pursuant to the Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A, chapter 55 and makes a number of changes to post-conviction review.
1. It replaces the outdated phrase “mental disease or defect” with the word “insanity” to be consistent with Title 15, section 103, Title 17-A, sections 39 and 40 and the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11(a) and Rule 11A(h).
2. It expands the term “assigned justice” to also include “judge” to more accurately reflect to whom a post-conviction case may be assigned.
3. It makes a significant change regarding remedial relief for errors in calculations of good time, meritorious good time and similar deductions pursuant to Title 17-A, section 1253. Remedial relief relative to such administrative actions by the custodian is no longer obtainable by way of post-conviction review. Remedial relief, if any, must now be obtained by way of available administrative remedies pursuant to the Maine Administrative Procedure Act. Current administrative remedies provide for an adequate hearing process and for review of final custodian action pursuant to the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 80B or Rule 80C, making access to post-conviction review relief unnecessary and duplicative.
4. It makes clear that remedial relief for errors in calculations of deductions relative to time detained pursuant to Title 17-A, section 1253, subsection 2 remains governed by post-conviction review. Unlike the calculations for deductions for good time and similar types of deductions, the custodian does not make the calculations but instead relies upon a statement from either the transporter of the prisoner or the attorney for the State.
5. In addition to the current unavailability of post-conviction review relative to a revocation of probation proceeding, it clarifies that such is also the case with respect to court proceedings involving the revocation of intensive supervision, supervised release for sex offenders and administrative release. Each such court proceeding is provided in the Maine Criminal Code with a statutorily created hearing process and appellate review, making access to post-conviction relief unnecessary and duplicative.
6. It clarifies what other administrative actions must be addressed by way of the available administrative remedies rather than by way of post-conviction review.
7. It eliminates the outdated reference to proceedings before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Judicial Court.
8. It replaces the word “are” with the word “were” in Title 15, section 2122 in the context of the remedies formerly available pursuant to former statutory post-conviction habeas corpus. The word “were” was incorrectly changed to “are” by Public Law 1997, chapter 399, section 1.
9. For the purpose of notice, it adds audita querela to the list of common law remedies that were abolished in Maine with the advent of the post-conviction review statute. The Maine Law Court recently held in State v. Blakesley, 2010 ME 19, ¶ 23, 989 A.2d 746, 751-52 that, assuming without deciding whether audita querela was potentially available in criminal matters before the advent of the post-conviction statute, audita querela was abolished by that statute.
10. It amends Title 15, section 2123, subsection 2 to be gender-neutral.
11. It enacts Title 15, section 2123-A to clarify that administrative actions excluded from the definition of "post-sentencing proceeding" in Title 15, section 2121, subsection 2 are subject to review in the manner provided by the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, which is the exclusive method of review of those actions, replacing any previous common law or statutory method of review.
12. It amends Title 15, section 2124 to: make nonsubstantive changes to the present restraint or impediments provisions to enhance readability and clarity; delete the current time limitation in subsection 1, paragraph C relating to an unconditional discharge, which the time limitations pursuant to Title 15, section 2128-B now control; add in subsection 1 a new paragraph C-1 to reflect the holding in State v. Trott, 2004 ME 15, 841A. 789; remove a reference to paragraph C in subsection 1, paragraph D because paragraph D is not relevant to paragraph C; in subsection 1, paragraph E relating to a fine, add 2 limitations as to a fine that has not been paid constituting an impediment for purposes of subsection 1, namely, an inexcusable violation by the person of the mandate of Title 17-A, section 1303-B and an inexcusable failure by the person to pay the fine imposed or any outstanding portion; clarify that the term “fine” also includes any imposed monetary fees, surcharges and assessments, however designated; add in subsection 1 a new paragraph F that includes restitution, a sentencing alternative that was enacted by Public Law 1977, chapter 455, but was omitted from subsection 1 when it was enacted by Public Law 1979, chapter 701, section 15; provide for 2 limitations as to restitution that has not been paid constituting an impediment for purposes of subsection 1, namely, an inexcusable violation by the person of the mandate of Title 17-A, section 1328-A and an inexcusable failure by the person to pay the restitution imposed or any outstanding portion; limit any challenge made as to the amount of restitution ordered by applying Title 17-A, section 1330-A; for purposes of clarity, strike the reference to “a juvenile disposition other than incarceration or probation” and add a new paragraph that includes any other juvenile disposition imposed by the challenged criminal judgment not earlier covered in the preceding paragraphs; strike the indirect impediments addressed in subsection 3, paragraphs B and C because the former distinction drawn between facts that elevate the class or degree or increase the potential penalty but are not technically elements of the new crime in paragraph B and actual elements of the new crime that serve to accomplish the same result in paragraph C is no longer valid in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and its progeny; and create a new indirect impediment that combines 2 former provisions and specifies that the new requirement is not satisfied unless the crime is a felony or an infamous crime and the sentence alternative of incarceration has been imposed, and so does not authorize a defendant to initiate a post-conviction challenge pretrial. In Apprendi the United States Supreme Court held that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 490. The Court also stated that "facts that expose a defendant to a punishment greater than otherwise legally prescribed [are] by definition 'elements' of a separate legal offense." Id. at 483 n. 10. Apprendi applies as well to nonjury trials.
13. It amends Title 15, section 2128 to address only the waiver of grounds for relief found in subsections 1, 3 and 4. Subsection 2, which addresses certain errors not waived, was stricken from section 2128 and its provisions are now located in the newly enacted Title 15, section 2128-A. Subsections 5 and 6 were stricken from section 2128. The provisions of subsections 5 and 6 address the wholly different subject matter of filing deadlines and their provisions are now located in the newly enacted Title 15, section 2128-B.
14. It responds to the Law Court's holding in Chasse v. State, 2008 ME 28, ¶ 1, 942 A.2d 689 that no filing deadline exists by establishing a one-year filing deadline for post-sentencing proceedings.
15. In order to ensure fairness, it provides a grace period of the same length as the new one-year filing deadline for post-sentencing proceedings.