Claims in Second Post Conviction Petition Barred Under Knaffla

Williams v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 9/9/2015.  Mr. Williams is serving  a sentence from a 1997 conviction for first degree premeditated murder.  He filed this, his second post conviction petition, in 2013 claiming that both his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. The post conviction court denied the petition without a hearing. Justice Stras concludes that Mr. Williams' claims are procedurally barred.

Mr. Williams alleged that his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to investigate an alternative perpetrator defense; and that his appellate counsel has been ineffective for not raising trail counsel's aforesaid ineffectiveness.  The post conviction court said that Mr. Williams could have raised these claims in his first post conviction petition and thus he could not raise them now under Knaffla. Justice Stras agrees with that conclusion.  Once again, the court declines to address the question whether the Knaffla exceptions survived the enactment of the statutory two year limitations periods with its own exceptions.  Mr. Williams also said that his mental illness prevented him from filing the claims within the two year limitations period.  The post conviction court said that Mr. Williams had been sufficiently competent to file a direct appeal, the first post conviction, and an appeal of that order.  Justice Stras affirms that conclusion.