Erickson v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 2/5/2014. Mr. Erickson filed this second post conviction petition in 2012, long after the statutory limitations period had expired. To stay in court, he had to establish an exception to that limitations period. He went with newly discovered evidence and “interests of justice.” Neither worked.
Mr. Erickson said that his “newly discovered evidence” was a letter from appellate counsel that said that he had no recollection why he raised (or didn’t raise) appellate issues back some years ago. Justice Wright, for a unanimous court, said that this was not “newly discovered evidence.” For his “interests of justice” argument, Mr. Erickson said that the delay in filing this second petition was due to his limited educational attainment and his pro se status. Justice Wright pointed out, however, that neither of these impediments prevented him from having filed his first petition, and to have done so in a timely manner.
Mr. Erickson made a couple of other runs at relief, to no avail, either because of the limitations statute or having been previously presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment