Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota, 882 N.W.2d 207

Background

In 2001 Carrie Nelson was murdered at Blue Mounds State Park; a watch with a broken band and a pack of Doral 100 cigarettes were found at the scene and roughly $2,000 was missing. Swaney was identified by DNA and fingerprint/palm-print evidence and indicted in 2007. He was convicted on seven counts of murder in 2008 and sentenced to life without release; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
Swaney filed a postconviction petition in 2012 raising 35 claims including trial errors and multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claims. The postconviction court denied most claims as procedurally barred and granted an evidentiary hearing on several IAC claims.
At trial the State introduced DNA from the watch (Swaney could not be excluded), Swaney’s palm-prints and fingerprints from the office/flyer, photos of Swaney wearing a similar watch, evidence he smoked the same cigarette type, and witness testimony (including inmate informants) of incriminating statements. Swaney presented alibi/fishing testimony and sought to implicate another prisoner (A.F.).
The postconviction evidentiary hearing produced testimony from Swaney’s lead trial counsel only; the court denied the remaining IAC claims. Swaney appealed the postconviction denial.
The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether the postconviction court abused its discretion in: (1) denying claims as procedurally barred under Knaffla and related doctrines, and (2) denying IAC claims after the evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Swaney's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether five trial‑error claims should have received a postconviction hearing (Knaffla bar)	These claims (privileged phone call suppression, watch-photo discrepancy, prosecutorial misconduct re: phone call, jury instruction on degree of murder, alleged evidence tampering) were meritorious or newly discovered	Claims were raised or should have been known on direct appeal and thus Knaffla‑barred; no exception applies	Court affirmed denial: all five claims are procedurally barred and no Knaffla exception warranted
Whether IAC claim for failing to use peremptory strike against alleged biased juror required hearing	Counsel was ineffective for not striking biased juror	Juror bias issue was raised on direct appeal; voir dire record suffices to decide; claim Knaffla‑barred	Court held claim Knaffla‑barred; Fraga did not create a novel legal basis available only after Swaney’s direct appeal
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain prison phone records of witness M.K.	Records might show M.K. had outside sources and would impeach him, creating reasonable probability of different outcome	No evidence proffered about record contents; speculative; even if impeaching, there was strong independent evidence of guilt	Court denied relief for lack of prejudice; no reasonable probability of different outcome
Whether counsel was ineffective by delegating interviews to an investigator and not interviewing/calling N.K. or A.F.	Counsel’s limited investigation and failure to call key witnesses was neglectful and prejudicial	Use of investigator is standard and strategic; counsel investigated and reasonably declined to call N.K. (danger of hostile witness) and found A.F. uncooperative/wild card	Court held counsel’s investigation and strategic choices were reasonable; no IAC proven

Key Cases Cited

State v. Swaney, 787 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. 2010) (direct‑appeal decision describing trial evidence and issues)
Colbert v. State, 870 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 2015) (Knaffla procedural‑bar rule and exceptions)
State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (establishing procedural bar for claims available on direct appeal)
Quick v. State, 757 N.W.2d 278 (Minn. 2008) (novel‑legal‑basis exception to procedural bar)
State v. Fraga, 864 N.W.2d 615 (Minn. 2015) (juror actual‑bias analysis; not a novel rule for Knaffla purposes)
Sontoya v. State, 829 N.W.2d 602 (Minn. 2013) (IAC claims review under Knaffla where record suffices)
Sanchez‑Diaz v. State, 758 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 2008) (IAC claims requiring evidence outside the record may avoid Knaffla bar)
Lussier v. State, 853 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. 2014) (Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance test)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (reasonableness of limited investigations may be upheld as strategic)