Opinion
A22-1543
05-02-2023
Raymond Joseph Traylor, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-18-12641
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Kevin G. Ross, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. The district court found appellant Raymond Traylor guilty of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct in March 2019. It convicted Traylor in May 2019 and sentenced him to 360 months in prison for the first-degree offense and 300 months for the second-degree offense, with the terms to be served concurrently.
2. Traylor appealed his convictions, and we affirmed. State v. Traylor, No. A19-1236 (Minn.App. Aug. 17, 2020), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 2020). Traylor twice unsuccessfully petitioned the district court for postconviction relief. We affirmed the denial of his first petition. Traylor v. State, No. A21-1128 (Minn.App. Apr. 11, 2022).
3. Traylor filed his third postconviction petition in July 2022, alleging "vindictive malicious prosecution" and arguing that law enforcement did not interview or arrest him; that there was no arresting officer or reading of his Miranda rights; that the prosecution committed Brady violations; and that probable cause and jurisdiction were lacking to prosecute him. The district court construed his petition as alleging "vindictive malicious prosecution," Brady violations, jurisdictional and probable-cause deficiencies, violations of proper arrest protocol, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
4. After the judge initially assigned to consider Traylor's petition retired, the district court reassigned the case to a different judge and notified Traylor of the reassignment.
5. The district court denied Traylor's third postconviction petition both on the merits and as containing issues that were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976). Traylor appeals, arguing that the district court improperly reassigned the case and improperly decided the issues. Neither contention prevails.
6. The chief judge of the district or a judge acting on the chief judge's behalf must promptly assign a case to a judge when a petitioner files for postconviction relief, Minn. Stat. § 590.02, subd. 3 (2020), and the assignment need not be to the judge who presided in the underlying conviction, State v. Wiley, 420 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Minn.App. 1988), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 26, 1988). Traylor's contention that the district court improperly assigned the case to a different judge therefore fails. His other accusations of alleged judicial bias similarly fail for lack of factual and legal support.
7. We likewise reject Traylor's assertion that, because the Office of the Minnesota Appellate Public Defender was not notified of the reassignment, the reassignment violated his right to counsel. The record reveals that the public defender's office notified the district court that it would not represent him in this postconviction proceeding. See Minn. Stat. § 590.05 (2020). The reassignment did not violate Traylor's right to counsel.
8. The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Traylor's request for an evidentiary hearing. See Andersen v. State, 913 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Minn. 2018). It correctly determined that Traylor's arguments were Knaffla-barred based on his direct appeal and prior petitions. "[W]here direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief." Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d at 741. Although the court may nonetheless consider claims when the defendant presents a novel legal issue, or when the interests of justice require review, Buckingham v. State, 799 N.W.2d 229, 231 (Minn. 2011), Traylor's petition did not allege that his issues were novel or explain why justice requires their consideration.
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.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.