Post Conviction Claims Untimely Under Limitations Statute

Bolstad v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 3/23/2016.  Mr. Bolstad is serving a life sentence without possibility of release.  In this his second post conviction petition he says that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury in response to a jury question, and that the post conviction court should have used its supervisory powers to grant him a new trial "in the interests of justice."  The post conviction court summarily denied the petition and Justice G. Barry Anderson affirms.

Justice Anderson says that Mr. Bolstad's claims are untimely under the post conviction statute.  Mr. Bolstad countered that his petition should be considered because it is "not frivolous and is in the interests of justice."  Minn.Stat. 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5).  The statue also, however, requires that even if the claim meets 4(b)(5) the claim has to be filed within two years of the date when the "claim arises." Minn.Stat. 590.01, subd. 4(c).  A claim arises when a petitioner either knew or should have known that he had a claim. Mr. Bolstad's trial attorney actually objected to the jury instruction so Justice Anderson concludes that the post conviction court correctly determined that Mr. Bolstad knew or should have known about the claim at the time of trial, from which he had two years to do something about it. The court again declines to abandon the "knew or should have known" standard in favor of an actual knowledge standard.  Finally, the court declines to equitably toll the limitations period despite Mr. Bolstad's claims of poor health and other hardships.

As to the supervisory powers claim, the court points out that the trial courts don't have such powers and the court that does declines to exercise it.