Bad News for Post Convictions

Bad News for Post Convictions

Anyone working on getting an old postconviction relief by the courts may be in a rough ride with the recent court decisions.


A09-2047        Alexander Jerome Miller, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

1.   The 2-year time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c) (2010), applies to all of the exceptions listed in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b) (2010).
2.   The Legislature did not unconstitutionally usurp a judicial function when it added time limits to the postconviction relief statute, and application of the time limit did not violate appellant’s due process rights under the Minnesota Constitution.

Affirmed.


A09-2195        Jorge Alberto Sanchez, a/k/a Jorge Alberto Sanchez-Reyes,

1.   The 2-year time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c) (2010), applies to all of the exceptions listed in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b) (2010).
2.   A claim based on an exception in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b), arises, for purposes of calculating the 2-year time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c), when the claimant knew or should have known that the claim existed.
3.   Even if the 2-year time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c), is subject to equitable tolling, where state actors are not alleged to have prevented the petitioner from discovering the basis of his interests of justice claim, and the petitioner was not otherwise diligently pursuing his claim, petitioner is not entitled to relief on the basis of equitable tolling.
4.   The Legislature did not unconstitutionally usurp a judicial function when it added time limits to the postconviction relief statute, Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2010), and application of the time limits in the statute did not violate appellant’s due process rights under the Minnesota Constitution.

Affirmed.


A10-2061        James Luther Carlton, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

1.   Appellant’s postconviction claims are barred by the 2-year time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a) (2010), because they do not satisfy the interests-of-justice exception in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5) (2010).
2.   Application of the time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a), does not violate appellant’s due process rights under the Minnesota Constitution.

Affirmed.


By:Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.

Landon@AschemanSmith.com

(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533



No comments (Add your own)

Add a New Comment


code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.