Dobbins, Sr., v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 10/2/2013. In this post conviction appeal the court takes up two questions, one having to do with declarations against interest and the other having to do with appointment of advisory counsel in post conviction proceedings. Mr. Dobbins is serving a life sentence for a premeditated murder conviction. The state’s main witness was a Mr. King, who testified that he saw Mr. Dobbins shoot the victim. Mr. Dobbins, on the other hand, had testified that it was Mr. King who shot the victim.
After his conviction and sentence, Mr. Dobbins filed a post conviction petition alleging that Mr. King had confessed to a Mr. Harris that he had, indeed, shot the victim. The post conviction court summarily denied the petition, but the supreme court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Read about that here. At this hearing, however, Mr. King could not be found so Mr. Dobbins was left with the testimony of Mr. Harris. The state objected to Mr. Harris reciting what Mr. King said to him. The post conviction court agreed, excluded the hearsay and denied the petition.
Justice Stras, Lillehaug still not taking part, affirmed the post conviction court. Justice Stras first took up the hearsay question under Rule 804(b)(3) – declaration against interest – and went through the factors that he wrote about in Ferguson v. State to measure the “corroborating circumstances” that the rule requires. He found Mr. King’s purported statements lacking in this corroboration.
Mr. Dobbins had requested advisory counsel to assist him at the evidentiary hearing. Justice Stras says that Rule 5.04, subdivision 2 of the criminal rules allows for the appointment of advisory counsel only to a person who has an underlying right to counsel that has been waived. Here, Mr. Dobbins has no such right to counsel because he had been represented by counsel on his direct appeal. The court also declined to exercise its supervisory authority to impose such a requirement.
No comments:
Post a Comment