Bobo v. State, 2012 Minn. LEXIS 403

Bobo was convicted of first-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting and of drive-by shooting; life sentence for murder with concurrent 98 months for the other conviction.
On direct appeal, convictions were affirmed; postconviction petitions were filed alleging ineffective appellate counsel and newly discovered evidence.
The postconviction court summarily denied the second petition (ineffective appellate counsel) and denied the third petition (newly discovered evidence) without an evidentiary hearing.
The state’s evidence included cell-phone data and James’s testimony; James later claimed it was false and that he received benefits for testifying.
Bobo filed a third petition arguing James made post-trial confessions to inmates supporting an alternative perpetrator theory; the affidavits were hearsay and contested for trustworthiness.
The Supreme Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered-evidence claim, but the concurrence would have denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel's performance required an evidentiary hearing	Bobo claims appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a Miranda challenge to cell-phone testimony	Bobo cannot show deficient performance or prejudice on the Miranda issue	No evidentiary hearing required; failure to raise Miranda issue not unreasonable
Whether newly discovered evidence entitles relief requiring an evidentiary hearing	James’s post-trial affidavits and inmate statements could exonerate or impeach, not previously available	Evidence is cumulative and inadmissible hearsay; no reasonable probability of acquittal	Requires an evidentiary hearing; record not conclusively showing no relief; remanded for hearing

State v. Finnegan, 784 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2010) (de novo review of legal questions in postconviction matters)
Wilson v. State, 726 N.W.2d 103 (Minn. 2007) (credibility evaluation at evidentiary hearings; defer to defendant on hearing necessity)
Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2004) (recantations require credibility assessments at hearings)
Spann v. State, 740 N.W.2d 570 (Minn. 2007) (hearing necessity; distinguish pleading from entitlement to relief)
Dobbins v. State, 788 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 2010) (possibility of declarant appearing at hearing; distinguishes from hearsay rule)
Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997) (four-prong test for newly discovered evidence)
State v. Hurd, 763 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 2009) (hearsay evidence and eligibility for relief under Rainer)
State v. Ferguson, 804 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. 2011) (critical examination of alternative-perpetrator evidence)