Post Conviction Claims Are Time Barred

Fort v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 4/1/2015.  In this second petition for post conviction relief Mr. Fort claims ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; and he claims that the state mishandled evidence.  Read about Mr. Fort’s direct appeal here; and about his first post conviction petition here.

This go round, Mr. Fort said that his appellate counsel was ineffective for having withdrawn his first pro se post conviction petition and for not doing enough research on his case.  Justice Page rejects these claims because the constitutional right to counsel does not extend to state post conviction proceedings.  Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987).  The court has also said that under the state constitution a defendant has no right to assistance of counsel in a post conviction petition provided that that defendant had been represented by counsel on direct appeal.  See Barnes v. State, 768 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. 2009). 

Turning to Mr. Fort’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the mishandling of evidence, thee claims are time barred under Minn.Stat. 590.01, Subd. 4(a)(2).  Unless he can establish an exception to the limitations statute Mr. Fort’s claims are extinguished.  Mr. Fort “has not presented any argument – must less established – that an exception applies to his petition…”