Roby v. State
| Citation | 531 N.W.2d 482 |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. C0-94-1479,C0-94-1479 |
| Parties | Gary L. ROBY, Petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Syllabus by the Court
The district court properly denied the petition for postconviction relief because a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was raised and was decided on direct appeal. The district court properly denied other claims contained in the petition because they were known but not raised at the time of direct appeal, and their legal basis was reasonably available to counsel at the time the direct appeal was taken and decided.
Gary L. Roby, St. Cloud, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., William F. Klumpp, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Tom Foley, Ramsey County Atty., Darrell C. Hill, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
This appeal is from an order of the Ramsey County District Court summarily denying, without holding an evidentiary hearing, petitioner Gary L. Roby's petition for postconviction relief. Roby was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. This court affirmed Roby's conviction on direct appeal. In the present petition, Roby alleged seven claimed trial errors including ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court summarily denied Roby's petition. We affirm.
On August 31, 1989, a Ramsey County jury convicted Roby of premeditated first-degree murder and felony murder during an aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment. Roby directly appealed his conviction with the aid of the state public defender, and he filed a supplemental pro se brief in support of his appeal. On November 30, 1990, this court affirmed Roby's conviction. See State v. Roby, 463 N.W.2d 506 (Minn.1990). A summary of the facts underlying Roby's conviction can be found in that opinion.
On March 8, 1994, Roby filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief. He requested appointment of counsel for the postconviction proceeding. The state public defender, within his discretion, declined to represent Roby. See Minn.Stat. § 590.05 (1992). In his petition for postconviction relief, Roby alleged the following seven trial errors: he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel; the trial court should have sua sponte given a jury instruction on accomplice corroboration; the trial court should have sua sponte offered a limiting instruction on the offering of state exhibit 50B, a hair clipping found with the victim's body; the trial court should have submitted an instruction for second-degree manslaughter; the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the substantive crime of conspiracy when that crime was not charged in the indictment; the trial court should have instructed the jury that Minn.Stat. § 609.05 () "implied a high level of activity on [a] person charged under [the statute]"; and the jury's verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
On May 31, 1994, the district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, summarily denied Roby's petition. The court first held that Roby was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim because that claim was raised and was decided on direct appeal. The court also held that Roby's other claims were claims known but not raised at the time of direct appeal and that Roby was not entitled to relief because the claims lacked any novel legal basis that was unavailable to Roby at the time of his direct appeal. The court therefore concluded that "[t]he Petition, files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that [Roby] is not entitled to post conviction relief so that summary denial is appropriate and a further evidentiary hearing is not required." Roby argues that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted and in summarily denying his petition.
This court reviews a postconviction proceeding to determine only whether sufficient evidence exists to support the postconviction court's findings. Scruggs v. State, 484 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn.1992) (citing Gustafson v. State, 477 N.W.2d 709, 712 (Minn.1991)). We will not disturb the postconviction court's decision unless the court abused its discretion. Id.
The availability of postconviction relief is controlled in part by Minn.Stat. §§ 590.01-.06 (1994). With respect to the availability of an evidentiary hearing, the statute provides:
Unless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the court shall promptly set an early hearing on the petition and response thereto, and promptly determine the issues, make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto, and either deny the petition or enter an order granting the appropriate relief.
Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1. We have held that such an evidentiary hearing "is not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief." Fratzke v. State, 450 N.W.2d 101, 102 (Minn.1990) (citing State ex rel. Roy v. Tahash, 277 Minn. 238, 245, 152 N.W.2d 301, 306 (1967)). A petitioner must prove these facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3; see also State v. Rainer, 502 N.W.2d 784, 787 (Minn.1993).
With respect to summary denial of a postconviction petition, the postconviction statute provides: "The court may summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner and may summarily deny a petition 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. Pursuant to this language, we have consistently held that a claim raised on direct appeal will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief. Case v. State, 364 N.W.2d 797, 799 (Minn.1985) (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976)).
In the present case, Roby asserted on direct appeal, in his supplemental pro se brief, a claim of ineffective assistance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pederson v. State
...that the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise on direct appeal. Dukes, 621 N.W.2d at 251 (citing Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn.1995)). The record supports the postconviction court's conclusion that appellant's claim — that defense counsel's investigator's......
-
Greer v. Minnesota
...said that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time the direct appeal was taken and decided." Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn. 1995) (quotation marks omitted). Minnesota courts also allow substantive review of a claim "if fairness so requires and if the pe......
-
Pierson v. State, C8-01-1184.
...the petitioner did not "deliberately and inexcusably" fail to raise the issue on direct appeal. Dukes, 621 N.W.2d at 251; Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn.1995). Pierson did not raise his objection to the trial court's admission of Spreigl evidence on direct appeal. Pierson, 530 N.W......
-
Leake v. State, A06-1357.
...rule if the claim's novelty was so great that its legal basis was not reasonably available when direct appeal was taken. Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn.1995). Second, even if the claim's legal basis was sufficiently available, substantive review may be allowed "when fairness so re......