Opinion
A23-1683
06-05-2024
Lannon Lavar Burdunice, Appellant, v. Guy Bosch, Respondent.
Washington County District Court File No. 82-CV-23-4754
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Harris, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
JaPaul J. Harris Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2016, appellant Lannon Lavar Burdunice was indicted for first-degree intentional felony murder and unlawful possession of a firearm for shooting and killing a man over a sale of illegal drugs. After two juries heard his case-one deadlocked-he was found guilty and convicted of the lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder and the firearm charge. Burdunice is currently incarcerated in a state correctional facility for a 480-month sentence for the second-degree murder conviction.
2. In October 2023, Burdunice filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction and imprisonment, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 563.01 (2022). The district court denied Burdunice's request to proceed IFP because Burdunice failed to establish that his writ of habeas corpus was not frivolous.
3. Burdunice appeals the district court's denial of his IFP application, arguing his claims are not frivolous because his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges arguable bases for relief and factual disputes. Burdunice contends that his conviction is unconstitutional because a "constructive amendment" of his first-degree murder indictment occurred, and thus he "was not put on proper/fair notice that he was being held to answer to and subjected to punishment" for the second-degree intentional murder conviction; the district court "unlawfully added a different and additional charge" to his indictment; the state's closing arguments at trial amounted to "prejudicial variance"; the district court "improperly analyzed his pre-trial double jeopardy motion to dismiss and consequently exposed him to double jeopardy"; and that "his trial counsel and appellate counsel each deprived him of constitutionally effective assistance of counsel."
4. "We review a district court's denial of IFP status for an abuse of discretion." State v. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn.App. 2019). "A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is against logic and the facts in the record." Id.
5. A claim is frivolous if it "is without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument" to reverse or modify existing law. Maddox v. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 400 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn.App. 1987) (quotation omitted).
6. Burdunice previously appealed his conviction and dismissal of his postconviction petitions. State v. Burdunice, No. A18-1269, 2019 WL 3000714 (Minn.App. July 8, 2019) (affirming Burdunice's conviction), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2019); Burdunice v. State, No. A21-0888, 2022 WL 1298118 (Minn.App. May 2, 2022) (affirming district court's denial of Burdunice's postconviction petition), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2022); Burdunice v. State, No. A22-0076, 2022 WL 3581559 (Minn.App. Aug. 22, 2022) (affirming district court's denial of Burdunice's postconviction petition based on Knaffla procedural bar), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 23, 2022).
7. Burdunice's writ echoes his previous direct appeal and petitions for postconviction relief and is thus frivolous under Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3. See Burdunice, 2022 WL 3581559, at *1-2 (concluding that the postconviction court had jurisdiction and did not err by applying the Knaffla bar to Burdunice's claims, thereby rejecting Burdunice's arguments that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, the district court failed to properly analyze a double-jeopardy issue, and his second-degree murder conviction was invalid based on the indictment for first-degree murder); Burdunice, 2022 WL 1298118, at *1 (affirming Burdunice's conviction and sentence and rejecting his constitutional claims); Burdunice, 2019 WL 3000714, at *6 (rejecting Burdunice's argument that prosecutor's conduct during closing arguments at trial was prejudicial error); see also Burdunice v. State, No. 20-CV-2215, 2022 WL 16700297, at *4 (D. Minn. Nov. 3, 2022) (adopting magistrate judge's recommendation that Burdunice did not assert any arguments entitling him to relief and denying his writ of habeas corpus with prejudice). Because claims that have already been addressed by this court have "no reasonable basis in law," the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Burdunice's IFP application based on frivolity. See Maddox, 400 N.W.2d at 139.
8. The district court also properly denied Burdunice's application to proceed IFP under Minnesota Statutes section 563.02. The court may dismiss an action brought by an "inmate" who is "confined in a state correctional facility," if the action is "frivolous or malicious." Minn. Stat. § 563.02 (2022). Under section 563.02, an action is frivolous if it "has no arguable basis in law or fact," or is "substantially similar to a previous claim that was brought against the same party." Id., subd. 3(b). Burdunice is an inmate under section 563.02 because he is currently incarcerated in a state correctional facility. To show their IFP application is not frivolous, an inmate must provide an affidavit detailing how their claim "is not substantially similar" to any previous claims. Id., subds. 2(2)(i), 3 (requiring that inmate's application to proceed IFP must include a statement that claim is not substantially similar to a previous claim). Burdunice did not provide such an affidavit, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his IFP application as frivolous.
9. Furthermore, Burdunice's writ improperly challenges aspects of his criminal trial, conviction, and sentencing. See State ex rel. Butler v. Swenson, 66 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1954) ("Questions which should be determined at the trial or in a motion for a new trial or reviewed through some other regular legal procedure have no place in a habeas corpus proceeding."). Burdunice has availed himself of other mechanisms for relief-a direct appeal, two postconviction petitions, and appeals from the orders denying the postconviction relief-and cannot now collaterally attack his criminal conviction with the same arguments through a writ of habeas corpus. See Breeding v. Utecht, 59 N.W.2d 314, 316 (Minn. 1953) ("The writ may not be used as a cover for a collateral attack upon a judgment of a competent tribunal which had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person of the defendant.").
10. Therefore, we discern no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Burdunice's application to proceed IFP.
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.
BY THE COURT