Fox v. State, 913 N.W.2d 429

Thomas Fox was convicted by a Washington County jury of first‑degree premeditated murder and first‑degree felony murder for the 2011 stabbing death of Lori Baker; he was sentenced to life without release.
This court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in State v. Fox, 868 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2015).
Fox filed a pro se postconviction petition (Nov. 28, 2016) alleging multiple claims: insufficiency of evidence; ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; Brady violations; failure to preserve/examine evidence including DNA and fingernail samples; defective search warrant; prompt‑arraignment and competency issues; staged evidence; grand jury and counsel conflicts; and failure to seek DNA testing of a comforter.
The postconviction court summarily denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the petition and record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether claims were Knaffla‑barred (procedurally defaulted), whether any non‑barred claims fail as a matter of law, and whether Fox showed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Issue	Fox's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder	Evidence did not prove intent/premeditation	Evidence was sufficient; issue already rejected on direct appeal	Affirmed; claim barred because raised and rejected on direct appeal (Knaffla)
Brady and failure to disclose/exculpatory evidence	Prosecutor withheld impeachment/exculpatory materials (phone/video/records/informant deals)	Fox knew or should have known of these materials at trial/appeal; claims are procedurally barred	Affirmed; Knaffla‑barred because factual basis was known at trial/appeal
Various trial defects (search warrant validity, prompt arraignment, competency, staged photos, grand jury bias, conflicts, DNA testing)	Each claimed constitutional or counsel‑related error	These issues were known or should have been known by direct appeal; no new evidence or excuse for delay	Affirmed; claims Knaffla‑barred or otherwise without merit
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Appellate counsel failed to raise ineffective‑trial‑counsel claim, should have filed for postconviction first, and failed to review discovery fully	Appellate counsel acted reasonably in selecting meritorious issues; trial‑counsel claims already rejected; no prejudice shown	Affirmed; appellate counsel not ineffective as matter of law; claim fails without new evidence

State v. Fox, 868 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2015) (affirming Fox's convictions on direct appeal)
State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (postconviction bar for claims known or should have been known on direct appeal)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
Hooper v. State, 838 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 2013) (Knaffla application to Brady claims)
Vang v. State, 847 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 2014) (summary dismissal without hearing where claims fail as matter of law)
Zenanko v. State, 688 N.W.2d 861 (Minn. 2004) (appellate counsel need not raise meritless trial‑counsel claims)
Dobbins v. State, 788 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 2010) (appellate counsel entitled to reasonable strategic choices)
Wright v. State, 765 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. 2009) (ineffective assistance standards for appellate claims)
Patterson v. State, 670 N.W.2d 439 (Minn. 2003) (prejudice requirement in ineffective assistance claims)