Post Conviction Claims Procedurally Time Barred Under Knaffla

Carridine v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 7/29/2015. In this post conviction petition Mr. Carridine alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and newly discovered evidence based on affidavits of three individuals.  (You can read about the direct appeal here.)  The post conviction court granted an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence but summarily denied relief on all other claims.  After the hearing, the court denied the newly discovered evidence claim as well.

Three of the claims - admission of impeachment evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel - were based on the trial record.  Chief Justice Gildea concludes that these claims either were or could have been raised on direct appeal and thus were procedurally barred by statute, Minn.Stat. 590.01, subd. 1,and by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976).  The court again ducks the question whether the two exceptions of Knaffla survived the 2005 amendments to the post conviction statute.  Just to be safe, though, the court says that those exceptions don't entitle Mr. Carridine to any relief.

Mr. Carridine also alleged that his appellate counsel had been ineffective for not raising ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and for not raising prosecutorial misconduct.  Mr. Carridine had a long list of alleged failures by trial counsel.  Mr. Carridine said that trial counsel failed to:

hire or consult with an independent forensic expert; request forensic reports prepared by the State’s forensic expert in preparation for the trial; interview or subpoena two specific witnesses; hire a private investigator to track down additional witnesses; subpoena cellphone records of a key State witness, ... file motions to suppress evidence that was prejudicial to the defense; and review a surveillance tape prior to the pre-trial hearing, and object when a witness identified Carridine in the tape.

The court said that all of these alleged failures related to trial strategy, and that Mr. Carridine had provided no compelling reason to depart from the general rule that appellate courts do not review trial strategy for competence.  State v. Bobo, 770 N.W.2d 129, 138 (Minn. 2009).  Mr. Carridine also failed to show that there was prejudice - different outcome - had his trial counsel done all these things.  The court rather summarily dismisses the prosecutorial misconduct claims as lacking merit.

Finally, the court affirms the post conviction court's determination that Mr. Carridine's newly discovered evidence did not entitled him to relief.  The post conviction court found neither of the two witnesses who testified to be credible.  It seemed to strain credulity that these two guys had witnessed the homicide, decided not to come forward and then came forward years later when they just happened to be in the same prison as Carridine.