Riley v. State

• Decision Date: 15 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. A11–1809.,A11–1809.
• Citation: 819 N.W.2d 162
• Parties: Adrian Dominic RILEY, a/k/a Amiri Abdul Rasheed–El, petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

819 N.W.2d 162

Adrian Dominic RILEY, a/k/a Amiri Abdul Rasheed–El, petitioner, Appellant,

v.STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. A11–1809.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 15, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When the facts alleged in the petition and supporting affidavits are viewed in a light most favorable to appellant, he is conclusively entitled to no relief, and therefore the postconviction court properly denied appellant's second postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing.

2. The postconviction court properly denied appellant's motion for additional fingerprint and forensic DNA testing because appellant failed to establish either that the technology for the testing was not available at the time of the trial, or that the testing was not available as evidence at the time of the trial.

Adrian Dominic Riley, a/k/a Amiri Abdul Rasheed–El, Rush City, MN, pro se.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Matthew Frank, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Mark Metz, Carver County Attorney, Chaska, MN, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

OPINION

DIETZEN, Justice.

This appeal presents the issues of whether the postconviction court erred when it summarily denied appellant Adrian Dominic Riley's second postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing, and whether the postconviction court erred when it denied Riley's motion for additional fingerprint and forensic DNA testing. Riley was found guilty by a Carver County jury of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of second-degree murder arising out of the 1995 shooting deaths of Troy Tholkes, James M. Walters, and Treesa Woods. The district court entered convictions on the three counts of first-degree murder and imposed three consecutive life sentences. We affirmed Riley's convictions on direct appeal. State v. Riley (Riley I), 568 N.W.2d 518, 520 (Minn.1997). Because we conclude that Riley's petition was time-barred as a matter of law and that the motion was not supported by adequate proof, we affirm the postconviction court.

On the afternoon of May 23, 1995, Troy Tholkes, James M. Walters, and Treesa Woods ¹ were murdered at a farmhouse in Watertown Township. Riley I, 568 N.W.2d at 520. The night before the murders, two of the victims, Tholkes and Walters, took Tholkes' 1989 blue Chevrolet Beretta to get cash for drugs and then gathered with Riley at a Minneapolis residence. Id. Those present included Riley, who is black,² and Walters and Tholkes, who are white. Id. Also present was Sherri Murphy, who was a tenant at the Minneapolis residence. Id. The morning of the murders, James Greenwood, who lived at the Watertown farmhouse, dressed for work at about 8:45 a.m. Id. He noticed Tholkes lying on the couch, and a black man on the floor under a blanket. Id. Greenwood also smelled the odor of crack cocaine emanating from the room of his housemate, Walters. Id. As Greenwood left for work, he saw Tholkes' Beretta with a primer-colored bumper parked outside the farmhouse. Id.

In mid-morning, a City of Watertown employee gave directions to a white man and a black man who had asked where they could buy ammunition. Id. Later that afternoon, a man working near the farmhouse heard gunshots. Id. at 521. A few hours later, a witness encountered a black man in a car at the intersection of Willow and Watertown Road, in Orono, who was asking for directions to Minneapolis. Id. Soon after, another witness spotted a black man in a blue Beretta in Orono who asked for directions to Highway 12 in order to return to Minneapolis. Id.

When Greenwood arrived at the farmhouse that evening, he discovered Woods' body in Walters' upstairs bedroom, and called 911. Id. After arriving at the scene, police found the bodies of Walters and Tholkes outside the house. Id. All three had died from gunshot wounds. Id.

The police investigated the area near where the bodies were located. They found a target attached to a tree near the bodies of Walters and Tholkes that was riddled with bullets. Id. The police also found recently discharged 9 mm shell casings nearby. Id. Inside the farmhouse, the police found a box for a Smith & Wesson 9 mm handgun on the floor of the bedroom where the police discovered Woods' body. Id. The box had been opened and the gun was missing. Id. Police eventually concluded that at least four people had been alive at the farmhouse on the morning of the murder—Greenwood, Walters, Tholkes, and an unidentified black man. Id. Of the four, Greenwood had been interrogated, and Walters and Tholkes were dead. Therefore, the police focused their investigation on the unidentified black man. Id.

Subsequently, Sherri Murphy told police that she had seen Riley and others in her kitchen on the morning of the murders. Id. When police arrested Riley 2 days later at the house where Riley was staying, they recovered a Smith & Wesson 9 mm handgun at the house. Id.

Ultimately, a grand jury indicted Riley on three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of second-degree murder. Riley pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial.

At trial, the State presented evidence consistent with the facts outlined above. Additionally, the State presented forensic testimony that a gunshot residue test of Greenwood's hands was inconclusive, but Riley's test was positive. Id. at 523. Riley's fingerprints were found at the crime scene on a red plastic cup from the kitchen, the stereo cabinet in the living room, and a beer bottle recovered from the yard near the bodies of Tholkes and Walters. Id. A BCA forensic scientist testified that the prints on the glass of the stereo cabinet might have been left within a “period of days” before they were lifted by the police. Id. Another expert testified that two latent fingerprints recovered from the pistol came from Riley. Id. A ballistics expert testified that shell casings recovered at the scene were fired from the 9 mm Smith & Wesson pistol that was recovered at the house where Riley was staying. Id. The expert could not, however, determine whether bullet fragments recovered from the bodies of Tholkes, Woods, and Walters came from the alleged murder weapon. Id.

The jury found Riley guilty on all six counts. The district court entered convictions on the three counts of first-degree murder and imposed three consecutive life sentences. We affirmed Riley's convictions on direct appeal. ³Riley I, 568 N.W.2d at 520.

In 2007, Riley filed a postconviction motion for additional fingerprint and forensic testing. Riley, however, abandoned the motion before the postconviction court could issue an order. Two years later, Riley filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the postconviction court summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing.⁴ We affirmed the denial of Riley's petition, concluding that the petition was time-barred and that Riley failed to satisfy any of the time-bar exceptions set forth in Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2010). Riley v. State (Riley II), 792 N.W.2d 831, 834 (2011).

In 2011, Riley filed his second petition for postconviction relief, claiming that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing or a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Riley also brought a motion for additional fingerprint and forensic DNA testing. To support his petition and motion, Riley relied on affidavits from Joel Demond White, Landry Scott Goodwin, and himself. Riley asserted that Joseph Papasodora, who is now deceased, confessed to shooting the three victims. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the petition was time-barred by Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4. Further, the court concluded that the motion for fingerprint and forensic DNA testing did not satisfy the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1a (2010).

I.

On appeal, Riley argues that the postconviction court erred in two ways when it summarily denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing. First, he argues that the court erred in concluding that his petition was time-barred under Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2010), or if the petition was time-barred, that it failed to satisfy either the newly discovered evidence exception under subdivision 4(b)(2), or the interests of justice exception under subdivision 4(b)(5).⁵ Additionally, he argues that the court erred in concluding that his motion for fingerprint and forensic DNA testing failed to satisfy the requirements of section 590.01, subdivision 1a. We first consider the issues related to Riley's postconviction petition and then discuss Riley's motion for additional fingerprint and forensic DNA testing.

Generally, a person convicted of a crime who claims the conviction violates his rights under the constitution or laws of the United States or Minnesota may file a petition for postconviction relief. Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (2010). Moreover, a petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the petition “[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2010).

We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. State, 784 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Minn.2010); Doppler v. State, 771 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn.2009). A postconviction court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” Riley II, 792 N.W.2d at 833. We review a postconviction court's factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard, and do not reverse those determinations unless they are not factually supported by the record. Scherf v. State, 788 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Minn.2010). But we review the court's legal conclusions de novo. Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn.2007).

An evidentiary hearing on a petition is mandated whenever “material facts are in dispute which...