Glaze v. State, 909 N.W.2d 322

Billy Richard Glaze was convicted in 1989 of multiple murders; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2007 Glaze sought postconviction DNA testing; testing later produced new DNA evidence implicating an alternative suspect and led to an amended postconviction petition seeking relief or an evidentiary hearing.
Glaze died on December 22, 2015 while postconviction proceedings were pending; the State moved to dismiss the petition as moot.
The personal representative of Glaze’s estate moved in the district court to be substituted as petitioner and to amend the caption; the court’s dismissal order did not rule on those substitution motions.
Glaze’s former attorneys (who did not identify the personal representative in the notice) filed the appeal; the Supreme Court questioned whether any aggrieved appellant appeared and requested supplemental briefing.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held the attorneys lacked standing to prosecute the appeal after their client’s death, concluding no aggrieved party had appealed and dismissing the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel (former attorneys) may prosecute appeal after client’s death	Counsel argued appeal should proceed; substitution could occur and court could grant effectual relief (clear Glaze’s name) or apply public‑interest exception to mootness	State argued petition was moot upon death and attorneys lacked authority to act for deceased client; substitution required and was not accomplished	Held: Attorneys lacked standing; death terminated attorney’s authority and no aggrieved appellant appeared, so appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether appellate substitution may be supplied by counsel under Rule 143.02 or civil Rule 25.01	Counsel relied on Minn. R. Civ. P. 25.01 to substitute personal representative and urged court to consider merits anyway	State noted Rule 143.02 controls appellate substitution and requires a personal representative to file the notice of appeal; here a personal representative existed but did not file timely notice	Held: Rule 143.02 governs substitution on appeal; counsel could not file in place of a living personal representative and substitution did not occur, so counsel could not invoke appellate substitution rights

State v. Glaze, 452 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. 1990) (affirming Glaze’s convictions on direct appeal based on overwhelming evidence)
Witthuhn v. Durbahn, 157 N.W.2d 360 (Minn. 1968) (discussing substitution after plaintiff’s death and timeliness of a substitution motion)
Pautz v. American Ins. Co., 128 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 1964) (attorney’s authority terminates upon client’s death)
Hart v. Blabey, 35 N.E.2d 657 (N.Y. 1941) (attorney cannot file appeal after client’s death because authority ceased)
United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (1995) (standing cannot be waived and is required for judicial review)
In re Custody of D.T.R., 796 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 2011) (standing must be maintained at each stage of litigation)