Quick v. State, A04-1393.
| Decision Date | 24 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. A04-1393.,A04-1393. |
| Citation | 692 N.W.2d 438 |
| Parties | Jon E. QUICK, petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Jon E. Quick, Bayport, MN, pro se appellant.
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Kelly O'Neill Moller, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Thomas A. Opheim, Norman County Attorney, Ada, MN, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
Jon E. Quick was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for the killing of Justin Mueller and sentenced to life in prison. State v. Quick, 659 N.W.2d 701 (Minn.2003). The facts underlying Quick's conviction can be found in our decision on Quick's direct appeal. Id. In that appeal, Quick raised a number of claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel based on his counsel's failure to obtain all necessary documents and failure to pursue a medical defense. Id. at 717. We denied Quick's claims and affirmed his conviction. Id. Quick subsequently brought a petition for postconviction relief, claiming the following as newly discovered evidence: (1) recently attained evidence proving his attendance at a parenting class on the evening of the murder that corroborated his testimony as to his whereabouts that evening; (2) documentation showing his fluctuating blood sugar levels the day of the murder; and (3) evidence of his upbringing in a religious sect. With respect to items one and two, Quick argues that the evidence supports a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his counsel's failure to pursue all necessary documents and a medical defense. With respect to item number three, he claims that the religious sect evidence is a mitigating factor for the charge of first-degree premeditated murder. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition. We affirm.
We review a postconviction court's denial of relief for abuse of discretion. Perry v. State, 595 N.W.2d 197, 200 (Minn.1999). A postconviction court "may summarily deny a petition [for postconviction relief] when the issues raised in it have previously been decided by the court of appeals or the supreme court in the same case." Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2004). Further, in State v. Knaffla, we held that once a direct appeal has been taken, "all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief." 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). As we noted in King v. State, 649 N.W.2d 149, 156 (Minn.2002), Knaffla also bars claims that should have been known at the time of direct appeal. A postconviction court may, however, hear and consider a claim that was previously known but not raised (1) if the claim presents a novel legal issue or (2) if fairness requires review of the claim and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal. See Greer v. State, 673 N.W.2d 151, 155 (Minn.2004).
It is not clear from Quick's postconviction petition whether his claims of newly discovered evidence relating to his attendance of the parenting class and documentation of his fluctuating blood sugar levels on the day of the murder present the same issues raised in Quick's ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andersen v. State
...or (2) the interests of fairness and justice warrant relief. Reed v. State, 793 N.W.2d 725, 730 (Minn.2010) (quoting Quick v. State, 692 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Minn.2005)); Powers v. State, 688 N.W.2d 559, 561 (Minn.2004). Petitions allowed under the second exception must have substantive merit a......
-
Reed v. State
...denied the claim as lacking factual support. We review the denial of postconviction relief for abuse of discretion. Quick v. State, 692 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Minn.2005). Under this standard of review, a matter will not be reversed unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an ar......
-
Fahey v. State
...completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction or sentence."); Quick v. State, 692 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Minn. 2005) ("Knaffla also bars claims that should have been known at the time of direct appeal."). The district court must grant an evid......
-
Lawrence James Montanaro v. State , A10–1633.
...of Montanaro's petition. Generally, we review a postconviction court's determinations for abuse of discretion,6see Quick v. State, 692 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Minn.2005); however, the postconviction court's lack of findings and analysis makes it difficult for us to do so here. Normally, this would......