Clifton v. State
830 N.W.2d 434
| Minn. | 2013Background
- Clifton was convicted in Sept. 2003 of first-degree premeditated murder for shooting Steven Nix; conviction affirmed on direct appeal in Clifton, 701 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 2005).
- Nix was previously charged with attempted murder of Clifton’s brother but acquitted; Clifton threatened Nix after that verdict.
- At trial, Walker testified for the State about seeing Clifton shoot Nix; Walker later recanted at the first trial but then reaffirmed at the second trial.
- Walker and two other eyewitnesses (D.N. and C.C.) testified at the second trial identifying Clifton as the shooter.
- In Sept. 2011 Clifton filed a postconviction petition seeking a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on Walker’s affidavits and Madeline Walker’s affidavit alleging false testimony and an alternative perpetrator.
- The postconviction court denied relief as time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a), and found the new-affidavit evidence not newly discovered under § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clifton’s petition was timely under § 590.01,4(a). | Clifton argues the 2-year deadline should not bar due to newly discovered evidence. | State contends petitions filed after 2-year limit are barred unless an exception applies. | Petition time-barred; 4(a) applies unless an exception is satisfied. |
| Whether Walker’s affidavits constitute newly discovered evidence under § 590.01,4(b)(2). | Walker’s recantation and alternative-perpetrator allegation are newly discovered. | Affidavits are cumulative and not new; they were presented at trial or are not clearly convincing of innocence. | Affidavits not newly discovered evidence; not eligible for the exception. |
| Whether the 4(c) two-year ticking under subdivision 4(c) preserves Clifton’s argument. | Argues petition timely under subdivision 4(c) assumption. | State does not contest under 4(c); waives argument per Carlton. | 4(c) argument waived; not considered further. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickert v. State, 795 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 2011) (standard for reviewing postconviction orders; de novo legal questions)
- Miles v. State, 800 N.W.2d 778 (Minn. 2011) (fact-finding deferential standard on postconviction petitions)
- Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. 2012) (waiver of argument when State does not contest subdivision 4(c))
- Gassier v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard; statements must be unequivocal and credible)