Opinion
A22-1722
06-12-2023
William Jeffrey Leo McDonough, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, et al., Respondents.
Washington County District Court File No. 82-CV-22-668
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Gaitas, Judge; and Larson, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
THEODORA GAI'TAS, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant William Jeffrey Leo McDonough challenges the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus without an evidentiary hearing. Because the district court did not err in summarily denying McDonough's habeas petition, we affirm.
2. Following a jury trial in 2000, McDonough was convicted of one count of first-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting and one count of attempted first-degree murder while committing a drive by shooting. The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment for first-degree murder and imposed a consecutive 180-month prison term for attempted first-degree murder.
See Minn. Stat. § 609.185(3) (1998) (a person commits first-degree murder by causing "the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit . . . a drive-by shooting").
3. McDonough appealed directly to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the supreme court affirmed the convictions.
The underlying facts are explained in State v. McDonough, 631 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2001) (McDonough I), the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in McDonough's direct appeal.
4. After the direct appeal, McDonough filed five postconviction petitions and three related appeals challenging his convictions. The district court denied McDonough's postconviction petitions, and the supreme court affirmed. See McDonough v. State, 827 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. 2013) (McDonough IV); McDonough v. State, 707 N.W.2d 384 (Minn. 2006) (McDonough III); McDonough v. State, 675 N.W.2d 53 (Minn. 2004) (McDonough II).
5. McDonough's fifth postconviction petition asserted that he was "entitled to relief because the statute under which he was convicted requires legally inconsistent mental states and is therefore unconstitutional." McDonough IV, 827 N.W.2d at 425. The district court denied the postconviction claim because it was, "among other things, untimely." Id. at 426. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that McDonough's postconviction petition was untimely under the postconviction statute and he did not meet an exception to the statutory time-bar. Id. at 427; see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2010) (providing that a postconviction petition must be filed within two years of the appellate court's disposition of a direct appeal except under limited exceptions).
6. In February 2022, McDonough filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court. McDonough's petition alleged that his imprisonment is unlawful because the offenses of first-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting and attempted first-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting require inconsistent mental states. The petition further alleged that because his offenses of conviction "did not exist," the district court lacked jurisdiction in his case. McDonough requested an evidentiary hearing and "immediate release from prison."
7. The district court summarily dismissed McDonough's habeas petition with prejudice. It determined that the habeas petition was an improper collateral attack on McDonough's convictions and that McDonough was not entitled to relief on the merits.
8. McDonough now appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
9. A writ of habeas corpus is a statutory civil remedy by which a petitioner may obtain relief from unlawful imprisonment or restraint. Minn. Stat. § 589.01 (2020). Habeas relief is generally "limited to resolving jurisdictional issues and violations of constitutional rights." State ex rel. Young v. Schnell, 956 N.W.2d 652, 673-74 (Minn. 2021). A habeas petition "may not be used as a substitute for an appeal." State ex rel. Shannon v. Tahash, 121 N.W.2d 59, 61 (Minn. 1963). And a petitioner may not use habeas review "as a cover for a collateral attack upon a judgment of a competent tribunal which had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person of the defendant." Breeding v. Swenson, 60 N.W.2d 4, 7 (Minn. 1953). A petition is properly denied where the petitioner could have raised the underlying claims through other legal means. See Kelsey v. State, 283 N.W.2d 892, 893-94 (Minn. 1979) (stating that a habeas petition must be dismissed when used as a vehicle for raising issues that could have been raised in a direct appeal or postconviction petition).
10. This court may affirm the denial of a habeas petition when the petition, on its face, fails to present a case for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. State ex rel. Nelson v. Rigg, 107 N.W.2d 378, 379 (Minn. 1961).
11. McDonough argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition because he presented a valid legal claim regarding the district court's jurisdiction. We disagree. McDonough's habeas petition collaterally attacks his convictions, which he has challenged in a direct appeal to the supreme court and five postconviction petitions. Indeed, McDonough's habeas petition raises essentially the same legal issue that the supreme court declined to consider in affirming the denial of his fifth postconviction petition. See McDonough IV, 827 N.W.2d at 427. McDonough's attempt to rebrand the issue as a jurisdictional claim is simply a "cover for a collateral attack" upon his convictions. Breeding, 60 N.W.2d at 7. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is an improper vehicle for such a claim. Because McDonough's petition, on its face, fails to present a case for issuing a writ of habeas corpus, the district court did not err in dismissing it.
12. McDonough also argues that the district court erred in dismissing the petition without granting an evidentiary hearing. We again disagree. In habeas corpus proceedings, "[a] petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if a factual dispute is shown by the petition." Seifert v. Erickson, 420 N.W.2d 917, 920 (Minn.App. 1988), rev. denied (Minn. May 18, 1988). A petitioner is not entitled to such a hearing if the petition presents a purely legal question. Id. McDonough's petition failed to identify any factual dispute that would warrant a hearing. The petition challenged the validity of Minnesota statutes and the district court's jurisdiction, which are purely legal questions. Thus, McDonough was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing the petition without one.
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.