Eugene Erick FORT, petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
No. A14-1692.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
April 1, 2015.
861 N.W.2d 674
In Griller, after describing the defendant‘s version of events as “far-fetched,” we concluded that, “[g]ranting Griller a new trial under these circumstances would be an exercise in futility and a waste of judicial resources,” which would thwart the integrity of judicial proceedings. 583 N.W.2d at 742. The United States Supreme Court has similarly concluded that granting a new trial in the face of uncontroverted or overwhelming evidence “encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 470, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 634, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (stating that “[t]he real threat then to the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings would be if respondents, despite the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence that they were involved in a vast drug conspiracy, were to receive a sentence prescribed for those committing less substantial drug offenses because of an error that was never objected to at trial” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, in the face of uncontroverted and overwhelming evidence, which includes a 911 recording of one of the assaults, granting Bustos a new trial is unwarranted.
GILDEA, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Wright.
DIETZEN, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Wright.
because the “particularly serious” errors affected Bustos‘s substantial rights in his specific trial, the majority departs from the United States Supreme Court‘s well-reasoned analysis in Olano, 507 U.S. at 736-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770.
Eugene Erick Fort, Bayport, MN, pro se.
OPINION
PAGE, Justice.
Appellant Eugene Erick Fort was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, in violation of
I.
The relevant facts are as follows.1 Between midnight and 1 a.m. on December 15, 1990, Potts was stabbed 44 times and
At trial, during the jury deliberations, a man called Fort‘s trial counsel and said that P.R., Fort‘s cousin, had confessed to Potts’ murder. Based on that call, Fort requested a new trial and the district court held an evidentiary hearing to consider P.R.‘s alleged confession. The district court ultimately denied Fort‘s request for a new trial, convicted Fort of both counts of first-degree murder, and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release.
On direct appeal, as discussed above, we affirmed Fort‘s conviction of premeditated first-degree murder, but vacated Fort‘s conviction of first-degree murder while committing a burglary. Fort I, 768 N.W.2d at 344. Fort filed a pro se postconviction petition in 2009, requesting, among other things, DNA testing of the blood smear found at the Potts’ house and disclosure of all other evidence the State collected. Fort also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting that his trial attorney failed to have the smear tested, present alibi witnesses, and interview other witnesses. In its response, the State explained that none of the limited blood sample taken from the Potts’ house in 1990 remained to be tested, and indicated that the BCA had attempted to test it in 2007, but because no sample remained, “there [was] no possibility of any additional testing.” After subsequently retaining counsel, Fort filed a motion to dismiss the pro se petition.
Fort renewed his petition for postconviction relief in 2011, requesting an evidentiary hearing and a new trial to consider evidence he claimed was new and exculpatory. Fort II, 829 N.W.2d at 80-81. Fort sought relief primarily based on the issues of: (1) newly discovered eyewitness testimony regarding the whereabouts of P.R. in the hours before the Potts murder, which Fort claimed buttressed his alternative-perpetrator theory; and (2) a request for DNA testing of the blood smear found at the crime scene. Again, the State explained that the sample from the blood smear was either nonexistent or too small to retest. The postconviction court denied Fort‘s petition for postconviction relief and motion for DNA testing without holding an evidentiary hearing, noting that, “as a practical and legal matter,” no DNA testing could be conducted on the smear sample. We affirmed, concluding that the proffered testimony failed to satisfy the four-prong test for newly discovered evidence from Rainer v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692, 695 (Minn.1997), and that Fort failed
In April 2014, Fort brought the instant pro se petition for postconviction relief, seeking an evidentiary hearing regarding (1) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) the State‘s “mishandling” of the blood-smear sample that he claimed would have been exculpatory. The State argued that the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel and loss-of-evidence claims are time barred under
The postconviction court summarily denied Fort‘s petition, concluding that Fort‘s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and loss of evidence were Knaffla-barred because Fort raised them in his direct appeal and first postconviction petition, and that he failed to demonstrate that appellate counsel‘s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
II.
We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion. Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn.2012). In doing so, we review questions of law de novo, but our review of questions of fact is “limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings of the postconviction court.” Sanchez-Diaz v. State, 758 N.W.2d 843, 846 (Minn.2008) (citing Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn. 2007)).
A.
In this appeal, Fort argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for withdrawing his first pro se postconviction petition and for not doing enough research on his case. Fort‘s claim fails as a matter of law. The United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant a right to the effective assistance of counsel in a criminal proceeding.
We have interpreted the right to counsel under the Minnesota Constitution more broadly to guarantee a criminal defendant the right to counsel for a first postconviction petition if the defendant did not pursue a direct appeal. Deegan v. State, 711 N.W.2d 89, 97-98 (Minn.2006). We have also held, however, “that a defendant who has been represented by counsel on direct appeal has no right under the Minnesota Constitution to the assistance of counsel—effective or otherwise—in a subsequent postconviction proceeding.” Ferguson, 826 N.W.2d at 816; see also Barnes v. State, 768 N.W.2d 359, 364 (Minn.2009); Schleicher, 718 N.W.2d at 446. Because Fort received the assistance of counsel during his direct appeal, neither the Unit
B.
We next consider Fort‘s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and mishandling of evidence. A postconviction court need not grant a hearing on a claim if the files and records of the proceeding conclusively establish that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
We affirmed Fort‘s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder on July 16, 2009, and denied his request for a rehearing on July 27, 2009. Fort did not seek review from the United States Supreme Court, and thus, his conviction and sentence became final for purposes of section 590.01 on October 25, 2009. See U.S. S.Ct. R. 13 (requiring petitions for certiorari to be filed in 90 days). Accordingly, Fort had until October 25, 2011, to timely file a postconviction petition. Fort did not file the instant petition until April 2014, more than 2 years after the statutory deadline. Therefore, his request for postconviction relief is time barred under
Fort has not presented any argument—much less established—that an exception applies to his petition that would excuse its untimeliness under
III.
Because the record conclusively shows that the claims raised in Fort‘s second postconviction petition fail on the merits or are time barred, the postconviction court did not err when it summarily denied Fort‘s petition. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.