Roby v. State, 808 N.W.2d 20

Roby was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree murder during aggravated robbery, and second-degree intentional murder for Marlizza McIntyre's killing.
Roby’s direct appeal in Roby I affirmed the convictions, and this appeal concerns denial of his third postconviction relief petition filed March 27, 2009.
Five pieces of purported newly discovered evidence were raised: a 1989 police report, a 2002 Dunn-Simmons letter, and affidavits from V.C. (2003), T.B. (2007), and C.H. (2008).
The postconviction court dismissed as untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a) but the Supreme Court reversed to consider exemptions under 4(b) and 4(c).
On remand, the court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding some claims untimely under 4(c) and others failing 4(b) exemptions; Roby appealed.
This Court applies de novo review to legal issues and clearly erroneous review to findings of fact, and requires an evidentiary hearing unless no relief is warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under 4(a) and exceptions	Roby contends time bar should be tolled by 4(b) and 4(c) exceptions.	State argues most claims are time-barred; only some claims potentially fit 4(c) and 4(b) exceptions were evaluated.	All claims are time-barred or fail 4(b) exceptions; no equitable tolling relief.
Newly discovered evidence standard	Affidavits (V.C., T.B., C.H.) meet 4(b)(2) newly discovered evidence requirements.	Affidavits are impeaching, cumulative, or inadmissible/insufficient to prove innocence.	V.C., T.B., and C.H. affidavits fail 4(b)(2); no newly discovered evidence relief.
Interests of justice exception	Even if untimely, petition should be considered under 4(b)(5) as interests of justice.	Interests of justice exception not satisfied given overwhelming trial evidence and lack of exceptional circumstances.	Interests of justice exception not satisfied; time-bar remains.
Equitable tolling under Holland standard	Holland equitable tolling could revive untimely claims due to prison policies obstructing filing.	General prison policies do not constitute extraordinary circumstances; no diligent pursuit shown.	Even assuming Holland tolling applies, Roby not entitled to relief; no extraordinary circumstance substantial enough.

Roby v. State (Roby I), 463 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. 1990) (affirmed conviction on direct appeal)
Moua v. State, 778 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 2010) (finality and timing of postconviction petitions)
Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (interests of justice and time-bar exceptions; substantial evidence scrutiny)
Rickert v. State, 795 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 2011) (interests of justice consideration in similar context)
Dobbins v. State, 788 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 2010) (hearsay and evidentiary considerations for postconviction claims)
Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928) (true recantations and evidence standards in innocence claims)
Knaffla, State v. Knaffla (Minn. 1976) (interests of justice doctrine and procedurals postconviction)
Gassler v. State (additional reference), 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (see above for 4(b)(5) discussion)
Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (equitable tolling standard for federal habeas; applied by analogy)
Eubanks, 277 Minn. 257, 152 N.W.2d 453 (1967) (dying declarations exception context)