Interests of Justice Exception to Post Conviction Limitations Provision Not Satisfifed

Taylor v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 2/3/2016.  This is Mr. Taylor's second post conviction petition.  While Mr. Taylor's first post conviction petition was on appeal the supreme court forcibly retired the judge who had presided over Mr. Taylor's trial and first post conviction petition.  Roughly ten years later Mr. Taylor filed this second petition, largely aimed at the retirement of his trial judge.  The post conviction court summarily denied the petition as time barred under the limitations provision of the post conviction statute.

Mr. Taylor said that his petition met the "interests of justice" exception to the two year limitations provision. Justice Stras rejects this assertion.  Mr. Taylor had said that he had been unaware of the judge's disabling condition at the time of his direct appeal, and that his understanding of the legal system was "lacking at best."  Justice Stras points out that just last year in Wayne v. State, 866 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. 2015), the court had rejected a petitioner's pro se status and limited educational attainment as meeting the interests of justice standard, at least where the petitioner has previously filed a post conviction petition.  The court continued to duck the question whether the Knaffla rule - raise it or waive it - survived the recent amendments to the post conviction statute.