Lowe v. Schnell

Background

Michael Carlton Lowe petitioned for federal habeas relief from his 2007 Minnesota conviction for assault, terroristic threats, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct. He argued that a 2018 Minnesota Supreme Court decision, State v. Ortega-Rodriguez, invalidated the conviction. He characterized the state courts’ handling of the criminal statutes as violating separation-of-powers principles. Lowe also challenged the calculation of his criminal-history score and the trial court’s restitution order.

The matter came before the district court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright’s Report and Recommendation, which recommended denying the petition as untimely and denying a certificate of appealability. Lowe objected to the recommendation and filed a notice of appeal from it, along with an application for a certificate of appealability.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that there is no direct appeal to the Eighth Circuit from a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Lowe’s notice of appeal was therefore ineffective; to appeal the district court’s order, he would need to file a new notice of appeal identifying that order.

After conducting the required review of Lowe’s objections, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court stated that, even assuming federal separation-of-powers principles could apply to the states, Lowe had not shown a separation-of-powers violation. In any event, the petition was untimely. The federal habeas statute generally requires a petition based on a new rule to be filed within one year after that rule arises. Ortega-Rodriguez was decided in 2018, but Lowe did not raise an issue based on it until a state petition in 2020 and did not file this federal petition until 2022. The court held that Lowe had not established grounds for equitable tolling, which is a possible extension of the filing deadline in appropriate circumstances. The court also rejected Lowe’s argument that an earlier federal habeas petition could save the later claims through relation back because the earlier petition raised different issues.

The court further stated that Lowe’s sentencing and restitution claims would not warrant federal habeas relief even if the petition had been timely. Errors involving state sentencing law generally are not federal habeas claims unless they amount to a due-process violation. The court concluded that an alleged error in calculating a state sentencing-guidelines range was not a federal constitutional violation. It also rejected Lowe’s argument that the Constitution prohibited the state court from imposing restitution when the victim had not requested it, explaining that any such violation would at most involve state law.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation; denied the petition as untimely; dismissed the matter; denied Lowe’s application for a certificate of appealability; and ordered that no certificate of appealability issue. Judge Paul A. Magnuson signed the Memorandum and Order on June 9, 2022.