Opinion
A20-1407
07-19-2021
Nathan Christopher Braun, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Benton County District Court
File No. 05-CR-16-1323 Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Slieter, Judge. BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Self-represented appellant Nathan Christopher Braun argues in his third postconviction petition for relief that the postconviction court abused its discretion by summarily denying his petition, in which he alleged: (1) the district court judge who presided over his underlying criminal trial committed "malfeasances, misfeasances, and nonfeasances;" (2) the victim committed perjury during trial testimony; and (3) the state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Because appellant's claims are procedurally barred, we affirm.
Appellant also argues that this court abused its discretion in his direct appeal by determining that appellant's pro se claims were forfeited, he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his criminal trial, and the district court judge presiding over appellant's third postconviction petition committed "abuse of office" and "misconduct." These claims are not properly before this court for review because they are raised for the first time on appeal, Azure v. State, 700 N.W.2d 443, 447 (Minn. 2005), or improperly raised by appellant for the first time in his reply brief, Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.02, subd. 3 (reply brief confined to new matters raised in respondent's brief).
2. In 2017, appellant was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and the district court imposed a 91-month sentence. We affirmed appellant's conviction in State v. Braun, No. A17-1889 (Minn. App. Sept. 4, 2018), review denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2018). Appellant filed his first petition for postconviction relief, which was summarily denied, and no appeal was filed.
3. Appellant filed a second petition for postconviction relief, and we affirmed the postconviction court's summary denial of that petition. Braun v. State, No. A19-0924, 2020 WL 994759, at *2-3 (Minn. App. Mar. 2, 2020), review denied (Minn. May 19, 2020).
4. Appellant filed a third petition for postconviction relief on August 13, 2020. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition, concluding that appellant raised issues that both lacked factual support and were "virtually the same [] as [] in his previous petitions for relief as well as . . . twice decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals" and thus procedurally barred by Knaffla. See State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976). Appellant appeals that summary denial.
5. This court reviews a summary denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion. Roberts v. State, 856 N.W.2d 287, 290 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Jan. 28, 2015). A postconviction court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction petition "[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief." Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2020). A district court may "summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner and . . . when the issues raised in [the petition] have previously been decided by the court of appeals or the supreme court in the same case." Id., subd. 3 (2020). And, pursuant to Knaffla, "where 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." 243 N.W.2d at 741.
6. Each of appellant's three claims raised in his postconviction petition are barred by Knaffla. Appellant's first claim, which this court addressed on appeal from the denial of appellant's second postconviction petition, was known to him at the time of trial and is Knaffla barred. Braun, 2020 WL 994759, at *3-4. Appellant's second and third claims were addressed, and denied, by the postconviction court following appellant's first postconviction petition and are Knaffla barred as known at the time of direct appeal.
7. Appellant did not allege in the postconviction court that any exception to the Knaffla bar applies to his claims and any such argument is therefore forfeited on appeal. See Brocks v. State, 883 N.W.2d 602, 605 (Minn. 2016) (concluding Knaffla-exception arguments forfeited if not raised before the postconviction court). Moreover, even if appellant had not forfeited such an argument, appellant's assertion that some evidence or possible claim is new to him, is not recognized as an exception to the Knaffla bar. See Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn. 2005) (explaining the two exceptions to the procedural bar are novel legal issue presented and interests of justice).
8. In sum, appellant's claims are procedurally barred.
We note that the two-year statutory bar to further postconviction petitions is in effect as this court affirmed appellant's direct appeal on September 4, 2018. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2020).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The postconviction court's order denying appellant's third 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.
Dated: July 19, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Randall Slieter