923 N.W.2d 2
Minn.2019Background
- In 2004 Crow (age 22) assaulted Robert Berry, who was later stabbed and dumped in the Minnesota River; Crow fled, was arrested, tried, and convicted of aiding/abetting first‑degree felony murder (kidnapping) and received mandatory life without parole.
- Crow's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Crow, 730 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2007).
- Crow filed three prior postconviction petitions (2008, 2009, 2013), each summarily denied; many claims were held Knaffla‑barred (procedurally barred as known/knowable earlier).
- In 2017 Crow filed a fourth postconviction petition raising: claim for resentencing like co‑defendant J.P. (a juvenile resentenced after Jackson/Miller/Montgomery), as‑applied Eighth Amendment challenge, multiple ineffective‑assistance claims, and that postconviction statutes denied counsel; he also asserted mental‑health tolling of time limits.
- The postconviction court summarily denied relief; the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, holding Crow was not entitled to relief because (inter alia) Miller/Montgomery relief applies only to juvenile offenders, many claims were Knaffla‑barred, and Crow failed to show prejudice or factual support for ineffective‑assistance or competency claims.
Issues
| Issue | Crow's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crow must be resentenced like co‑defendant J.P. after J.P.'s juvenile resentencing | J.P.'s resentencing under Jackson/Miller/Montgomery means Crow (similar role) should get similar relief | Miller/Montgomery relief limited to offenders who were under 18 at offense; Crow was 22 | Denied — relief limited to juveniles; adult sentence constitutional |
| Whether Crow's adult LWOP sentence violates Eighth Amendment as‑applied or Equal Protection | Crow says comparable youth/maturation and aider/abettor status make LWOP cruel or unequal | Legislature mandates LWOP for heinous crimes; adults not similarly situated to juveniles | Denied — statute and precedent uphold adult LWOP; Equal Protection argument fails |
| Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective (multiple discrete claims) | Crow alleges failures re: plea advice, investigation, jury instructions, competency evaluation, speedy trial, omitted instructions, and appellate omissions | Claims lack factual support, are conclusory, or were known/knowable earlier (Knaffla); appellate counsel may select issues | Denied — either Knaffla‑barred or unsupported; no Strickland prejudice shown |
| Whether postconviction statute denied right to counsel or mental‑health tolling excuses time bars | Crow says §590.05 denied appointed counsel for postconviction and mental disease prevented timely filings | Crow had counsel on direct appeal; prior petitions filed; claims previously rejected; mental‑health assertions conclusory | Denied — claim is procedurally barred and unsupported; court did not rely on statutory time bar |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crow, 730 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2007) (direct‑appeal decision affirming conviction and sentence)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller retroactive)
- Jackson v. State, 883 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2016) (Minnesota remedy and resentencing approach for juveniles after Miller/Montgomery)
- Knaffla v. State, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (procedural bar: issues known or knowable on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in postconviction petition)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)