Opinion
A23-0670
01-26-2024
Lannon Lavar Burdunice, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-16-19342
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Ede, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Keala C. Ede Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Lannon Lavar Burdunice was indicted for first-degree murder while committing or attempting to commit an aggravated robbery. He was also indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm. A jury found Burdunice guilty of the firearm charge but failed to reach a verdict on the first-degree murder charge. The district court accepted the guilty verdict for the firearm count and scheduled another trial on the murder count. A second jury found Burdunice guilty of second-degree intentional murder. Based on Burdunice's firearm and murder convictions, the district court imposed concurrent 60-month and 480-month sentences, respectively. Burdunice filed a direct appeal, and this court affirmed the convictions. See State v. Burdunice, No. A18-1269, 2019 WL 3000714, at *1 (Minn.App. July 8, 2019), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2019). The Minnesota Supreme Court denied Burdunice's petition for further review and, three months later, Burdunice petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On March 9, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied Burdunice's petition.
2. In April 2021, pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, Burdunice filed his first challenge to his sentence. The district court treated Burdunice's motion as a petition for postconviction relief and issued an order denying relief. Burdunice appealed the district court's order, and this court affirmed. See Burdunice v. State, A21-0888, 2022 WL 1298118 (Minn.App. May 2, 2022), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2022). In July 2021, Burdunice petitioned for postconviction relief, in which, among other challenges, he argued again that his sentence was illegal. The district court denied Burdunice's postconviction petition, concluding that Burdunice's illegal-sentence claim was barred per State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976). Burdunice appealed the district court's denial, and this court affirmed. See Burdunice v. State, A22-0076, 2022 WL 3581559, at *1 (Minn.App. Aug. 22, 2022), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 23, 2022). In May 2022, Burdunice filed another challenge to his sentence, arguing that the criminal-history score in his presentence-investigation report (PSI) was incorrect. In June 2022, the district court filed an order ruling that Burdunice's sentence was correct.
3. On January 20, 2023, Burdunice filed the postconviction petition that underlies this appeal. In the petition, Burdunice claimed violations of his due-process rights during sentencing because the district court "relied on materially false, inaccurate, and unreliable information contained" in the PSI; "failed to make explicit findings" and "to rule on" Burdunice's objections to the PSI before sentencing him; and "failed to disclaim reliance on the disputed matters" in the PSI. On March 3, 2023, the district court summarily denied Burdunice's petition, concluding that Burdunice's claims were time-barred under Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4(a) (2022), and that his claims were barred under Knaffla. Burdunice appeals.
4. A person convicted of a crime who claims that a conviction or sentence violated his rights may petition for postconviction relief. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(1) (2022). "No petition for postconviction relief may be filed more than two years after the later of: (1) the entry of judgment of conviction or sentence if no direct appeal is filed; or (2) an appellate court's disposition of petitioner's direct appeal." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a). The two-year statute of limitations starts to run after a conviction becomes final. See Berkovitz v. State, 826 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Minn. 2013). If a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed with the United States Supreme Court, a conviction becomes final when the Supreme Court denies review. See Moua v. State, 778 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 2010); see also Fox v. State, 938 N.W.2d 252, 256 (Minn. 2020) (stating that the two-year statute of limitations began to run when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review). There are five exceptions to the two-year statute of limitations. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b) (2022). A petitioner "bears the burden of establishing that an exception applies." Wayne v. State, 912 N.W.2d 633, 640 (Minn. 2018).
5. A postconviction petition may also be procedurally barred under the Knaffla rule, which provides that "'all claims known but not raised' at the time of direct appeal are barred from consideration in any subsequent petitions for postconviction relief." Cooper v. State, 745 N.W.2d 188, 190-91 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d at 741). The bar established by Knaffla also "includes all claims that the appellant should have known of at the time of appeal." McKenzie v. State, 687 N.W.2d 902, 905 (Minn. 2004). Additionally, absent application of two exceptions that are inapposite here, the Knaffla rule bars consideration of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in a previous postconviction petition. See Hooper v. State, 838 N.W.2d 775, 787 (Minn. 2013).
6. We review a district court's decision to summarily deny a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion. See Andersen v. State, 913 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Minn. 2018). A district 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." Id. (quotation omitted).
7. The United States Supreme Court denied Burdunice's petition for a writ of certiorari on March 9, 2020. As a result, Burdunice's deadline to file a postconviction petition was March 9, 2022. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(2); see also Fox, 938 N.W.2d at 256. By filing the present postconviction petition in 2023, Burdunice failed to meet the statutory deadline. Burdunice does not argue that any specific exception to the statutory time bar applies, nor do we discern that any do. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Burdunice's claims were time-barred under Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4(a).
8. Burdunice was present at his sentencing hearing, and, in every prior petition Burdunice has filed, he has raised an argument about his sentencing. Thus, the claims Burdunice has raised in his current petition should have been known to him at the time of his direct appeal or could have been asserted previously. Burdunice makes no assertion that an exception to the Knaffla rule applies. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Burdunice's claims were barred per Knaffla.
9. For the first time on appeal, Burdunice contends that Knaffla is unconstitutional because it was not enacted by the legislature. Burdunice did not raise this argument before the district court in his petition for postconviction relief. "It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief." Azure v. State, 700 N.W.2d 443, 447 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted). Even if we were to consider the merits of Burdunice's claim, it fails because the Minnesota Supreme Court has already rejected a similar argument. See Townsend v. State, 767 N.W.2d 11 (Minn. 2009). In Townsend, the supreme court explained that "Minn. Stat. § 590.01 has been validly amended to include the Knaffla rule" and that the rule has been "enacted into law and codified in the Minnesota Statutes." Id. at 14. Burdunice's Knaffla challenge is therefore unavailing.
10. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying relief because Burdunice's postconviction claims were untimely and barred under Knaffla.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.