Opinion
A21-1003
02-28-2022
Adam Robert Hageman, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Morrison County District Court File No. 49-CR-16-1124
Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Randall J. Slieter, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In August 2016, appellant Adam Robert Hageman was involved in a physical altercation with his father and brother which involved a gun. Following criminal charges and jury verdicts of guilty, Hageman was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, second-degree assault, and domestic assault. In August 2019, the district court sentenced Hageman to 60 months in prison.
2. In November 2019, Hageman filed a direct appeal of the three convictions. Hageman argued that he was denied a speedy trial and argued in his pro se supplemental brief that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to move to dismiss based upon a lack of speedy-trial.
3. After this court affirmed Hageman's conviction, State v. Hageman, No. A19-1893, 2020 WL 6554843, at *4 (Minn.App. Nov. 9, 2020), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 2021), Hageman filed a postconviction petition in May 2021, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which was summarily dismissed by the postconviction court.
4. In this appeal, Hageman challenges the denial of his postconviction petition, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to review all of Hageman's discovery and failing to seek reassignment of the trial judge due to an alleged conflict of interest. We conclude that the postconviction court acted within its discretion because Hageman's postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is Knaffla-barred.
5. We review the postconviction court's order for an abuse of discretion. See Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017). "A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has 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. (quotations omitted). "A postconviction court does not abuse its discretion when it summarily denies a petition that is procedurally barred by the Knaffla rule." Jackson v. State, 919 N.W.2d 470, 473 (Minn. 2018). The Knaffla rule bars postconviction relief for any claim that was previously raised on direct appeal as well as all claims "known but not raised" in the direct appeal. State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976). The Knaffla rule applies "in postconviction proceedings raising constitutional issues of criminal procedure." Lynch v. State, 749 N.W.2d 318, 321 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
6. Because Hageman raised an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in his direct appeal and therefore knew or should have known of the claims he presents in his postconviction petition, any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is Knaffla-barred. See id. (Knaffla-barring a claim of failure to disclose grand jury inducement because the claim was raised in the direct appeal).
The record indicates Hageman was actually aware of one of his Knaffla-barred claims. During a sentencing hearing, Hageman specifically indicated that he asked his trial counsel to seek reassignment of the judge.
7. The postconviction court acted within its discretion by denying Hageman's postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing because Hageman's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are Knaffla-barred.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The postconviction court's order denying Hageman's petition for 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.