Evans v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 8/5/2015. Mr. Evans filed a motion under a civil procedure rule, Rule 60.02, which alleged various claims, including ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The district court treated the motion as a second post conviction petition and summarily denied it as untimely under the two year limitations period. Justice G. Barry Anderson, for a unanimous court, affirms.
The court ducks the question - maybe two questions actually - whether it's correct to treat a Rule 60.02 motion as a post conviction petition (which subsumes the question whether a criminal litigant can resort to the civil rule ) - with its usual "It doesn't matter" response. Treated either way, Mr. Evans' claims, basically a riff on his first post conviction petition, remain barred.
No comments:
Post a Comment