Fratzke v. State

• Decision Date: 05 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. C8-89-1182,C8-89-1182
• Citation: 450 N.W.2d 101
• Parties: Gordon Allen FRATZKE, Petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 101

450 N.W.2d 101

Gordon Allen FRATZKE, Petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. C8-89-1182.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 5, 1990.

Syllabus by the Court

Petitioner did not allege facts which warranted a postconviction evidentiary hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and, in any event, that claim was procedurally barred. Nor did petitioner demonstrate an evidentiary hearing was required on the claim of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel.

C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, and Mark D. Nyvold, Sp. Asst. State Public Defender, Minneapolis, for petitioner, appellant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Paul R. Kempainen, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, and John Hoffman, Mille Lacs County Atty., Milaca, for respondent.

Heard, considered and decided by the court en banc.

SIMONETT, Justice.

In 1982 a jury in Mille Lacs County District Court found petitioner, Gordon Allen Fratzke, guilty of first degree murder and aggravated robbery. The presiding judge sentenced petitioner to life imprisonment on the murder charge. This court affirmed his conviction. State v. Fratzke, 354 N.W.2d 402 (Minn.1984). ¹ The Federal District Court denied his subsequent petition for federal habeas corpus relief and an appeal to the Eighth Circuit was dismissed as untimely. Thereafter, in December 1988, petitioner filed a pro se petition seeking postconviction relief under Minn.Stat. ch. 590 (1988). The court found that the only claims that had not been previously raised, ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel, were meritless. We affirm.

Court-appointed counsel from the seventh judicial district defender's office did not meet with petitioner until the day of the hearing, May 18, 1989, though the appointment was ordered a week in advance. Counsel indicated he was unprepared, requested that he not be limited to what was argued at the hearing, and asked for additional time to allow petitioner to prepare a formal petition with assistance of the state public defender. Alternatively, counsel requested an evidentiary hearing "if necessary." The postconviction court denied relief without granting a continuance. Petitioner contends he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the ineffectiveness claims and that the postconviction court abused its discretion by not granting a continuance.

We do not believe petitioner's allegations required an evidentiary hearing. Such a hearing is not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief. State ex rel. Roy v. Tahash, 277 Minn. 238, 245, 152 N.W.2d 301, 306 (1967). Thus, petitioner had to allege facts which would "affirmatively prove that his counsel's representation 'fell below an objective standard of reasonableness' and 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.' " Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Minn.1987) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

The petition alleges that trial counsel did not properly handle hearsay and inconsistent testimony and "coached" the accomplice, who testified for the state. ² Postconviction counsel did not elaborate on these allegations, nor did petitioner add anything when asked by the court on two occasions if his counsel had covered everything. The court found that petitioner's allegations were too generalized to warrant an evidentiary hearing. We agree. Accordingly, we find that petitioner did not allege facts necessary to show that his trial counsel was negligent or that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different. Cf. Gates, 398 N.W.2d at 562 (court may dispose of ineffectiveness claim solely by finding failure to prove that outcome may have been different).

Moreover, this court has consistently indicated that "where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief." State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976); see also Case v. State, 364 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn.1985) (only where a claim is so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time direct appeal was taken and decided will postconviction relief be allowed). This rule includes claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Dent v. State, 441 N.W.2d 497 (Minn.1989). ³ The record shows that petitioner and appellate counsel considered challenging trial counsel's performance. Therefore, petitioner is procedurally barred from...