Brown v. State of Minnesota, Minn.S.Ct., 5/20/2015. This is Mr. Brown’s fifth petition for post conviction relief. This is also his fourth published opinion. He said this time that he could file this petition, which attacked his guilty plea and several other things, under any of three statutory exceptions to the two year limitations period established under Minn.Stat. 590.01, subd. 4(a): a mental disease precluded a timely assertion of his claim; his claim was based on newly discovered evidence, and the interests of justice required consideration of his claim. Justice Dietzen, for the entire court, rejects this assertion.
As to the assertion of a mental disease precluding a timely filing of his claim the court simply concurs with the post conviction court that Mr. Brown hasn’t established that assertion from the documents that he submitted. He also failed to establish the “actual innocence” prong of the newly discovered evidence exception. Finally, Mr. Brown also did not establish that it was in the interests of justice to hear his claim.
Most, if not all, of Mr.Brown’s claims herein had been raised in one fashion or another in his previous petitions. The court continues to duck the question whether the Knaffla rule (and its exceptions) remains cognizable under the statutory limitations regime.
No comments:
Post a Comment