Opinion
A22-1125
03-08-2023
Danny Aleck Bowie, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-06-005391
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Cleary, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Renee L.Worke, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Danny Aleck Bowie, Jr., pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and aggravated robbery. On September 5, 2006, the district court sentenced Bowie to 456 months in prison in accordance with a plea agreement. The district court entered the judgment of conviction the same day. Bowie did not directly appeal.
2. In July 2021, Bowie filed his third petition for postconviction relief, challenging his sentence. The district court denied Bowie's petition as, among other things, time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(1) (2022). Bowie appealed.
3. The denial of postconviction relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hannon v. State, 957 N.W.2d 425, 432 (Minn. 2021). We will not reverse unless the district court "exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings." Id. (quotation omitted).
4. A district court may deny a postconviction petition "filed more than two years after . . . the entry of judgment of conviction or sentence if no direct appeal [was] filed." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(1). But a petition filed after this deadline may be deemed timely if the petitioner shows, among other things, "that the petition . . . is in the interests of justice." Id., subd. 4(b)(5) (2022). To show that a petition is in the interests of justice, the petitioner "must allege an injustice"-that is, "an act or omission"-that prevented him from filing the petition within the two-year period. Hannon, 957 N.W.2d at 436 (quotation omitted).
5. Because Bowie did not directly appeal, the two-year limitations period began running when the district court entered the judgment of conviction on September 5, 2006. That makes Bowie's petition over 12 years late.
6. Bowie asserts that his petition is timely under the interests-of-justice exception. But Bowie offers no reason why he did not file the petition within the limitations period. Therefore, Bowie has not shown that the exception applies. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bowie's petition as time-barred.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The district court's order denying postconviction relief 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.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.