Two Year Limitations Provision For Post Conviction Petitions is Not Jurisdictional

Hooper v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 10/30/2013.  This is Mr. Hooper’s third petition for post conviction relief.  He alleged the discovery of new evidence which entitled him to a new trial.  He filed this petition well after expiration of the two year limitations period.  The state argued to the post conviction court that this untimeliness required the court to dismiss the petition.  The post conviction court concluded, however, that one of Mr. Hooper’s claims – an alleged confession to the crime by another person – was not time barred.  The post conviction court heard evidence on parts of the petition and eventually denied it in its entirety.

On appeal, the state did not argue the limitations provision and thus arguably abandoned it.  Brocks v. State, 753 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2008).  To Justice Stras, however, this omission by the state raised the question whether the limitations provision of Minn.Stat. 590.01, Subd. 4(a) was jurisdictional or an affirmative defense that the state may waive.  The court decides, as it had when considering the same question about Subd. 4(c), that the limitations provision is not jurisdictional and is therefore subject to waiver.  The remedies in the post conviction statute, rather than purely statutory creations that were unknown at common law, are either codifications of or replacements for preexisting remedies, including common law writs of habeas corpus and coram nobis.  In general, limitations provisions deprive courts of subject matter jurisdiction only when the claim is a purely statutory claim.

The court then addressed the merits of Mr. Hooper’s claims and concluded that the post conviction court had not abused its discretion in its various rulings and denial of relief.  Justice Stras again raises, but does not resolve, an issue that has been lurking since passage of the 2005 amendments to the post conviction statute:  Do the Knaffla exceptions – a defendant presents a novel legal issue, or the interests of justice require the court to consider the claim – survive passage of the 2005 amendments.  Knaffla bars consideration of claims that were raised in the direct appeal, all claims of which a defendant knew or should have known at the time of the direct appeal, and claims that were raised or could have been raised in a previous post conviction petition.  The statutory language passed in 2005 only applies to grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal and makes no mention of the Knaffla exceptions.  At a minimum, Justice Stras concludes that the statute does not apply to claims that were raised or could have been raised only in a previous post conviction petition.