Nissalke v. State, 2015 Minn. LEXIS 116

appellant Jack Willis Nissalke convicted of first-degree premeditated murder in 1985 for Ada Senenfelder’s homicide
sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of release; affirmed on direct appeal in 2011
pro se postconviction petition filed July 1, 2013 seeking relief on sentencing, restitution, newly discovered evidence, and ineffectiveness claims
postconviction court granted relief on sentencing but denied other claims without an evidentiary hearing
this appeal challenges the denial of those other postconviction claims as to evidentiary hearings, restitution, ineffective assistance, and other asserted grounds
court affirms, holding the petition and record conclusively show no entitlement to relief

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Newly discovered evidence of juror misconduct requires an evidentiary hearing?	Nissalke asserts new photo evidence and juror interview support misconduct	State contends evidence fails Rainer four-prong test or admissibility limits bar inquiry	No relief; failure to satisfy Rainer prong 4; no prejudicial impact shown
Restitution based on joint and several liability is warranted?	Nissalke seeks proportional restitution among co-defendants	Johnson authorizes joint liability; Nissalke not entitled to relief	No relief; Johnson authorizes joint liability framework
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims entitle relief?	Trial counsel failed to investigate/advise on plea; jailhouse recordings support	Claims barred by Knaffla on direct appeal; no merit shown	No relief; Knaffla bar applies to trial-counsel claims; appellate-counsel claims lack Strickland merit
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims entitle relief?	Appellate counsel failed to obtain discovery and stayed appeal to develop record	Discovery on appeal not part of record; no deficiency in performance; no stay required	No relief; appellate-performance not deficient under Strickland; no reversible error
Brady, prosecutorial misconduct, and other newly discovered evidence claims entitle relief?	Claims not raised on direct appeal; newly discovered or Brady-related	Procedurally barred or meritless; no exception applies	No relief; procedurally barred or lacking merit

Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997) (four-prong test for newly discovered evidence)
Fort v. State, 829 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. 2013) (evidentiary hearing not required when facts are legally insufficient)
Bobo v. State, 820 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 2012) (Strickland two-prong test; standards for hearings)
Lynch v. State, 749 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 2008) (postconviction review standards; abuse of discretion)
Sanchez-Diaz v. State, 758 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 2008) (Knaffla-related requirements; direct appeal principles)
Torres v. State, 688 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 2004) (ineffective-assistance claims; procedural bars)
Knaffla v. State, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976) (concept of precluding postconviction relief for issues available on direct appeal)
Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1995) (exceptions to Knaffla bar for novel or fair-record fairness)
Berkovitz v. State, 826 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 2013) (discussion on whether exceptions survive 2005 amendments to §590.01)