Post Conviction: No one raises the limitations question

Brocks v. State of Minnesota, 753 N.W.2d 672, (Minn., July 31, 2008), en banc.

Mr. Brocks gets an Opinion from the Supreme Court on the denial of his post conviction petition. He gets the opinion because the state failed to raise the two year statute of limitations in either the trial court of the appellate court. The oversight does not assist Mr. Brocks, though.

Eleven years ago this month, Mr. Brocks shot James Nunn seven times. Mr. Brocks did not deny the shooting; rather, he claimed he did so in self defense. The jury convicted him of first degree murder. On appeal, he argued that the trial court should have given a manslaughter instruction; and, (in a pro se supplemental brief), that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The ineffective assistance claim alleged that trial counsel had a conflict of interest because he had worked with and been a friend of the victim’s father; and that counsel undermined the defense by advising him to discuss his drug involvement and to claim self-defense. Both aspects of the ineffectiveness claim were rejected on direct appeal.

Brocks argued in his post conviction proceeding that these claims fell within the two Knaffla exceptions, but the Court quickly points out that these exceptions only apply to claims that had not been raised on direct appeal. Consequently, Brocks’ ineffective assistance, post conviction claim is barred by Knaffla.

Brocks claimed that he had accepted the prosecutor’s plea offer on the Friday before trial was to start on Monday, but because his attorney waited until Monday morning to communicate the acceptance the prosecutor had withdrawn the offer. Unfortunately, Brocks is raising this claim for the first time on appeal of denial of post conviction relief so the court won’t entertain it.