Erickson v. State, 2014 Minn. LEXIS 57

Timothy Erickson was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1988 killing of Donald Gall; he confessed after Miranda warnings and consented to a home search.
Erickson was tried, found guilty (jury rejected intoxication and mental-illness defenses), and sentenced to life; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Erickson filed a first postconviction petition in 2006 under the 2005 statute; the petition was summarily denied and this Court affirmed in 2007 (many claims barred by Knaffla).
In October 2012 Erickson filed a second postconviction petition asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (based on a 2012 letter from appellate counsel), prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The postconviction court construed the petition principally as an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim and summarily denied relief as time barred and procedurally barred by Knaffla; the court also declined to reopen claims previously rejected.

Issue	Erickson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective and the claim is timely under newly discovered evidence	The 2012 letter from appellate counsel shows counsel failed to investigate and merely relied on trial counsel; letter is newly discovered evidence excusing the time bar	The letter does not show counsel’s failure to investigate, could have been obtained earlier, and does not establish innocence	Denied — letter is not newly discovered evidence and does not meet exceptions to § 590.01 time bar
Whether prosecutorial misconduct claims are timely and cognizable	Prosecutor submitted/used fraudulent or false statements and withheld exculpatory evidence at trial	Claims relate to trial events, are not newly discovered, and are time barred by § 590.01; no excusing circumstances shown	Denied — claims are time barred and fail under the exceptions
Whether trial counsel ineffectively waived challenges to probable cause	Waiver was not knowing and intelligent given Erickson’s inexperience; counsel should have challenged arrest/searches	Similar claim was previously rejected; no compelling reason to reconsider	Denied — claim previously decided; court will not revisit the issue

State v. Erickson, 449 N.W.2d 707 (Minn. 1989) (direct appeal affirming conviction)
Erickson v. State, 725 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 2007) (affirming denial of first postconviction petition; Knaffla bar applied)
State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (rule barring claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2012) (summary denial appropriate where record conclusively shows no relief)
Clifton v. State, 830 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 2013) (elements for newly discovered-evidence exception to time bar)
Francis v. State, 829 N.W.2d 415 (Minn. 2018) (factors for interests-of-justice exception to time bar)