2/25/2013: No Published Court of Appeals Criminal Opinions Today

Supreme Court Oral Argument Calendar, Summary of Issues, March 2013

Argument  calendar, which includes summary of issues, is available here.

2/20/2013: No Published Minnesota Supreme Court Opinions Today

2/19/2013: No Published Court of Appeals Criminal Opinions Today

Nothing more to say.

Friday Sidebar: Meteor Explodes over Russa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iCawTYPtehk

Because No Exceptions to Two Year Limitations Applies, Summary Denial of Post Conviction Petition No Abuse of Discretion

Berkovitz v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 2/13/13.  Ms. Berkovitz’s convictions for first degree murder and attempted first degree murder became final back on February 1, 2006, so she had until February 1, 2008 to file her post conviction petition.  She filed that petition, however, on February 15, 2012.  To stay in court her petition had to satisfy one of the five exceptions in the statute.  Ms. Berkovitz alleged that the trial judge was biased against her, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that one of her public defenders had a conflict of interest.  She argued that these claims fit within either of two exceptions:  newly discovered evidence and interests of justice.

Justice Stras, for a unanimous court, said that her claims met neither of those exceptions.  Part of the newly discovered evidence exception requires a petitioner to establish that the newly discovered evidence makes her innocent of the crime.  Well, even if you accept all three of her legal claims, none of them proves that she didn’t kill one person and attempt to kill another.  But, on the first two legal claims the court is unwilling to conclude that there is newly discovered evidence in them; and on the third there’s no suggestion of innocence.

For the interests of justice exception, the petition can’t be frivolous, and reviewing it is in the interests of justice.  A frivolous claim is one in which “it is perfectly apparent, without argument, that the claims in the petition lack an objective, good-faith basis in law or fact.”  Wallace v. State, 820 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 2012).  Now, in Wallace, Justice Stras said that each of a petition’s claims must pass the not frivolous test. 

Under the plain language of subdivision 4(b)(5), therefore, a postconviction court must consider the whole petition in assessing whether a petitioner has satisfied the interests-of-justice exception, not just whether some of the individual claims in the petition are frivolous or fail to satisfy the interests-of-justice requirement

Here, he says:

a petition for postconviction relief is frivolous only if every claim in the petition lacks an objective, good-faith basis in law or fact.

This spin on Wallace seems to say the opposite, that if any of the claims pass the non frivolous test then the petition survives. 

In any event, all of Ms. Berkovitz’s claims are deemed frivolous so the summary dismissal of the petition is affirmed.

2/11/2013: No Court of Appeals Published Criminal Opinions Today

Says it all.

2/6/2013: No Published Supreme Court Criminal Opinions

However, the court did grant review in a number of cases, including these two:

State v. Wenthe, about which I wrote here.  The court of appeals reversed Mr. Wenthe's conviction.  The state sought review of that reversal and the defense sought review on the facial constitutionality (Establishment Clause) of Minn.Stat. 609.344, subd. 1(1).

State v. Juarez, review granted of an unpublished opinion of the court of appeals, available here.  The issue is the constitutionality of life without possibility of release for certain repeat sex offenders under Minn.Stat. 609.3455, subd. 2(a)(2).

Witness Recantation Claim in Post Conviction Petition & Affidavit Entitles Petitioner to Evidentiary Hearing

Martin v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 1/30/2013.  A jury convicted Mr. Martin of first degree premeditated murder, and crime committed for the benefit of a gang; the court sentenced him on the premeditated murder conviction to life without possibility of release.  Mr. Martin was seventeen at the time of the offense.  The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, State v. Martin, 773 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 2009).  Read about it here.  Mr. Martin filed a post conviction petition thereafter, which the post conviction court summarily denied.

Mr. Martin alleged witness recantations by the only two state witnesses who testified that Mr. Martin was one of the two who had shot the victim:  Mr. Pettis and Mr. Mack-Lynch.  Each provided an affidavit.  Mr. Pettis said in his affidavit that the first time he saw Mr. Martin was in a holding cell at the jail the day before Mr. Martin’s trial, and that the prosecutor pressured him into testifying that he saw Mr. Martin kill the victim, Mr. Lynch.  Mr. Mack-Lynch said in his affidavit that contrary to his trial testimony that he saw Mr. Martin shoot Mr. Lynch, he actually did not witness the shooting.  These affidavits entitled Mr. Martin to an evidentiary hearing; the affidavits presented competent material evidence that if found to be true following an evidentiary hearing could entitle Mr. Martin to a new trial.

Breaching of Time Deadlines –Without Objection - by Which to Hold Certification Hearing Does Not Divest Juvenile Court of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

In the Matter of the Welfare of:  R.D.M., III, Minn.Ct.App., 1/28/2013.  There is a juvenile statute, Minn.Stat. 260B.125, subd. 2(4), that says that hearings to certify a juvenile to adult court must be held within 30 days of the filing of the certification motion unless good cause is shown, in which case the hearing had to be held within 90 days of the filing of the motion.  The juvenile delinquency rules also establish a 90 day deadline for certification hearings. but the rule also says that the juvenile may waive the right to the scheduling of the hearing.  No one disagreed that the certification hearing in this case did not occur within the 90 day deadline.  R.D.M. argued that because of missing this deadline the juvenile court lost subject matter jurisdiction to hear it at all.

The court of appeals rejected this argument, saying that the failure to comply with the time requirements does not deprive the juvenile court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine the certification motion.  It may be that had R.D.M. challenged the untimeliness of the certification hearing he would be entitled to relief.  However, not only did R.D.M. not object or otherwise complain about the untimeliness of the certification hearing, he actually contributed to it both by agreeing to waive the time requirements and then requesting a continuance of the (already late) hearing.

No Published Court of Appeals Criminal Opinions Today

2/4/2013.  No published criminal opinions today.  For those keeping score.  For January:

Published Criminal:  02

Published Juvenile:  01