Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota
A16-1142
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Brett Green was convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to 153 months; this Court previously affirmed his conviction.
- Green filed a 2016 postconviction petition asserting newly discovered evidence: an affidavit from trial witness M.W. recanting parts of his trial testimony and alleging coercion/bribery by the victim, A.S.
- M.W.’s affidavit claimed he had been threatened/bribed into testifying, that Green was not in a position of authority, and that A.S. used drugs and fabricated events; the affidavit also acknowledged a delayed recantation.
- The district court summarily denied the petition, finding M.W.’s affidavit consistent with his trial testimony on essential points and insufficient to establish innocence or warrant a new trial.
- Green also challenged a 30-day DOC extension of his incarceration for refusing chemical-dependency treatment; the district court declined to address DOC administrative decisions via a chapter 590 postconviction petition.
- Green appealed, arguing (1) entitlement to default judgment for delay, (2) error in denying an evidentiary hearing/new trial on the recantation, and (3) error in denying his DOC challenge. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Green) | Defendant's Argument (State/DOC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to default judgment for delayed ruling | District court exceeded a 90-day legal limit and must enter default judgment | No statute or Knaffla requires a decision within 90 days for postconviction petitions | Denied — no 90-day deadline; no basis for default judgment |
| Entitlement to evidentiary hearing/new trial based on M.W. recantation | M.W.’s affidavit proves actual innocence and undermines A.S.’s credibility; warrants hearing and new trial | Affidavit lacks indicia of trustworthiness and is consistent with trial testimony on essentials; recantations viewed with suspicion | Denied — recantation does not satisfy Larrison factors; no reasonable probability of a different verdict |
| Proper test for recantation/new-trial claims | (implicit) recantation should be considered under the correct standard | Court should apply Larrison three-prong test for false/recanted testimony | Applied Larrison; Green failed all required showings |
| Challenge to DOC’s administrative extension of incarceration | DOC violated due process, Fifth and Eighth Amendments by extending incarceration for refusing treatment | Administrative DOC decisions are not reviewable in a chapter 590 postconviction petition; habeas is proper vehicle and DOC must be named | Denied on procedural grounds — postconviction relief is not the proper forum; habeas with DOC named is the remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (addresses limits on successive postconviction claims)
- Caldwell v. State, 853 N.W.2d 853 (recantation claims and entitlement to evidentiary hearing standard under Minn. Stat. § 590.04)
- Ferguson v. State, 742 N.W.2d 651 (courts treat recanting affidavits with suspicion)
- Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir.) (three-prong test for new trial based on false testimony)
- Schnagl v. State, 859 N.W.2d 297 (procedural limits on using chapter 590 to challenge DOC administrative decisions)