Opinion
No. A08-1191.
Filed July 7, 2009.
Appeal from the District Court, Wilkin County, File No. 84-K6-04-000059.
Richard Andrew Christy, OID #215892, Prairie Correctional Facility, (pro se appellant).
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, David S. Voigt, Assistant Attorney General, and Timothy E. J. Fox, Wilkin County Attorney, (for respondent).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Richard Andrew Christy challenges the district court's order denying his second postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition when appellant failed to raise the issue of his right to confront witnesses in his direct appeal and first postconviction petition, we affirm.
DECISION
In a postconviction proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of proving the facts alleged in the petition by a preponderance of the evidence. Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2008). The postconviction court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the petition, files, and record of the proceeding conclusively show that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2008). We review the district court's decision to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support its findings, and we will not disturb the decision absent an abuse of discretion. Perry v. State, 731 N.W.2d 143, 146 (Minn. 2007).
Appellant raises issues related to his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 6, of the Minnesota Constitution. Appellant argues that he was deprived of his confrontation rights because his attorney stipulated that BCA lab reports could be admitted without calling the chemist who performed the analysis and because the court permitted his probation officer to testify to out-of-court statements made by his girlfriend. Relying on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), and State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. 2006), appellant asserts that his right to confront witnesses is a fundamental right that requires a personal waiver and that his attorney could not waive that right for him.
Once a defendant has made a direct appeal or petitioned for postconviction review, all claims that were known or should have been known, but were not raised, cannot be considered in a subsequent petition for postconviction review. White v. State, 711 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Minn. 2006); see State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). The so-called Knaffla rule has two exceptions: (1) the postconviction court may consider a novel legal issue; or (2) the postconviction court may review a claim in the interests of justice. White, 711 N.W.2d at 109. The second exception applies only if the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal. Id.
Appellant was found guilty in September 2004 and sentenced in November 2004. Crawford was decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 8, 2004, and therefore appellant's claims do not present a novel legal issue. See 541 U.S. at 36, 124 S. Ct. at 1354. Appellant did not raise the issue of his confrontation rights in his direct appeal, which was filed in February 2005. Appellant's first petition for postconviction relief was filed in December 2007; he did not raise confrontation claims in that petition. Because appellant's claims relate to matters known at the time of the direct appeal and the first postconviction petition, they are procedurally barred by the Knaffla rule. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's petition.
Affirmed.