Opinion
A20-0697 A20-0698
02-09-2021
Philip Lee Carlson, petitioner, Appellant (A20-0697), Virginia Marie Carlson, petitioner, Appellant (A20-0698), v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File Nos. 27-CR-11-29604, 27-CR-11-29606 Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On August 20, 2014, a jury found appellants guilty of four counts of theft by swindle over $35,000; one count of attempted theft by swindle over $35,000; and one count of aiding and abetting.
2. On March 14, 2016, this court affirmed appellants' convictions. See State v. Philip Lee Carlson, A15-0190 (Minn. App. Mar. 14, 2016), review denied (Minn. May 31, 2016), and State v. Virginia Marie Carlson, A15-0179 (Minn. App. Mar. 14, 2016), review denied (Minn. May 31, 2016).
3. Between February 2018 and June 2018, appellants filed four petitions for postconviction relief. All four were denied as barred by State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 738 (Minn. 1976) ("Where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, or all claims known but not raised will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.") and by Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2018) ("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.").
4. In December 2018, appellants challenged the district court's orders denying postconviction relief. This court consolidated their appeals and affirmed the district court's orders denying postconviction relief. See Carlson v. State, A18-1162, A18-1163, A18-1962, A18-1963; 2019 WL 3544055 (Minn. App. Aug. 5, 2019), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2019).
5. On October 31, 2019, appellants filed a motion for modification of their sentences. The district court denied relief, construing the motion as appellants' fifth petition for postconviction relief because they challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence for their convictions. Appellants challenged the order denying relief on August 3, 2020.
6. This court reviews a denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion. Reed v. State, 925 N.W.2d 11, 18 (Minn. 2019). In doing so, this court reviews the postconviction court's legal determinations de novo. Brown v. State, 895 N.W.2d 612, 617 (Minn. 2017).
7. Appellants argue that the "prosecution failed to provide evidence of theft by swindle" because "[t]here is no affirmative showing at trial of theft in an amount over $35,000." This is not a challenge to the appellants' sentence; rather, it is a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, which is a challenge to appellants' conviction. The district court did not err in reviewing the motion for sentence modification as a petition for postconviction relief.
8. The issues raised in this appeal are identical to issues on which this court has previously ruled. See Carlson, 2019 WL 3544055 (Minn. App. Aug. 5, 2019). Because the issues have been fully and fairly litigated, the district court properly denied appellants' claims as statutorily and procedurally barred under Knaffla and Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3.
9. Appellants' claims are also barred under the "law of the case" doctrine. "'[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.'" In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 375 (Minn. 1990) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983). Because appellants' claims in their postconviction petition are identical to claims raised in their direct appeal and in a prior postconviction litigation appeal, appellants are also precluded from raising them under the "law of the case" doctrine.
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.
Dated: February 9, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Francis J. Connolly