Opinion
A20-1446
06-18-2021
Scott Edward Weiss, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Guy Bosh, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Washington County District Court
File No. 82-CV-20-3600 Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Scott Weiss unsuccessfully petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, contesting his conviction after a jury found him guilty of four counts of criminal sexual conduct. We review the district court's factual findings in support of its denial of the petition for an abuse of discretion, and we consider its legal conclusions de novo. See Aziz v. Fabian, 791 N.W.2d 567, 569 (Minn. App. 2010).
2. A writ of habeas corpus is a civil remedy by which a petitioner may obtain relief from unlawful imprisonment based on a constitutional violation or jurisdictional defect. See Minn. Stat. §§ 589.01-.35 (2020); see also Breeding v. Swenson, 60 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn. 1953). Habeas corpus relief is not a tool to collaterally attack a conviction by a competent tribunal that properly exercised jurisdiction. See Kelsey v. State, 283 N.W.2d 892, 893-94 (Minn. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition because the petitioner could have raised the challenge by direct appeal or a postconviction petition). A district court may dismiss a claim for habeas relief if it determines that it is frivolous or malicious. Minn. Stat. § 563.02, subd. 3(a) (2020).
3. We decline to reach the merits of Weiss's claims on appeal. The record reflects that Weiss could have raised and did raise these claims in both a direct appeal and postconviction challenge to his conviction. See State v. Weiss, No. A07-1057, 2008 WL 4299619 (Minn. App. Sept. 23, 2008); State v. Weiss, No. A10-896, 2011 WL 1236047 (Minn. App. Apr. 5, 2011); Weiss v. State, No. A15-1647 (Minn. App. Dec. 30, 2015) (order). Our review of Weiss's habeas petition and the record informs us that he is essentially attempting to contest his conviction collaterally. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of the petition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment 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 P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: June 18, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Kevin G. Ross