Opinion
A20-1317
03-17-2021
David Richard Carlson, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-CR-05-2261 Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2006, a jury found appellant David Richard Carlson guilty of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of solicitation of a child to engage in sexual conduct. Carlson v. State, No. A13-1391, 2014 WL 1272351, at *1 (Minn. App. Mar. 31, 2014), review denied (Minn. May 28, 2014). The district court granted a posttrial motion for judgment of acquittal on the first-degree criminal-sexual-conduct charge, the state appealed, and this court reversed. State v. Carlson, No. A06-0961, 2007 WL 1053411, at *1 (Minn. App. Apr. 10, 2007), review denied (Minn. June 27, 2007).
2. The district court entered judgment of conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced Carlson to 144 months in prison with a ten-year conditional- release term. Carlson v. State, No. A18-0813, 2018 WL 6036511, at *1 (Minn. App. Nov. 19, 2018), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 2019). Carlson appealed, and this court affirmed his conviction. State v. Carlson, No. A07-2144, 2009 WL 304732, at *1 (Minn. App. Feb. 10, 2009), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2009). The district court later reduced the conditional-release term to five years. Carlson, 2018 WL 6036511, at *1.
3. Carlson has since made repeated, unsuccessful attempts to obtain postconviction relief. See, e.g., id.; Carlson v. State, No. A17-1152 (Minn. App. Feb. 2, 2018) (order op.), review denied (Minn. Mar. 20, 2018); Carlson v. State, No. A15-1388, 2016 WL 1397206, at *1 (Minn. App. Apr. 11, 2016), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2016); Carlson, 2014 WL 1272351, at *1; Carlson v. State, No. A12-0394, 2012 WL 5476140, at *1 (Minn. App. Nov. 13, 2012), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 2013); Carlson v. State, No. A09-1558 (Minn. App. Jan. 25, 2010) (order op.), review denied (Minn. Apr. 20, 2010).
4. In July 2020, Carlson filed another petition for postconviction relief seeking a "pardon and total reversal" of his convictions. As support, he cited the recent posthumous pardon of Max Mason, a young African American man convicted approximately 100 years ago. See State v. Mason, 189 N.W. 452, 452 (Minn. 1922). The postconviction court summarily denied Carlson's petition, concluding that it had no authority to grant a pardon and that the petition set forth no basis for postconviction relief.
5. We review the denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion. Rhodes v. State, 875 N.W.2d 779, 786 (Minn. 2016). "[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." State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976). In addition, if a claim "could have been raised in a previous postconviction petition, the Knaffla rule bars consideration of the claim in a subsequent petition for postconviction relief." Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 597 (Minn. 2017).
6. In seeking a "pardon" from the postconviction court, Carlson asserted that evidentiary errors occurred at his trial, including violation of the rule against hearsay. See Minn. R. Evid. 802 (stating that "[h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules"). Such claims were raised or could have been raised in Carlson's previous postconviction petitions. The claims are therefore Knaffla barred.
7. As to Carlson's "pardon" request, "[a] pardon is the exercise of executive clemency." State v. Meyer, 37 N.W.2d 3, 13 (Minn. 1949). Under the Minnesota Constitution, the power to provide a pardon is expressly granted to the Board of Pardons, which consists of the governor, the attorney general, and the chief justice of the supreme court. Minn. Const. art. V, § 7; Minn. Stat. § 638.02 (2020). The postconviction court is not authorized to grant a pardon. Thus, the postconviction court correctly denied relief.
8. In his brief to this court, Carlson raises issues that he did not raise in the postconviction court. Such issues are not properly before this court, and we decline to address them. See Powers v. State, 731 N.W.2d 499, 502 (Minn. 2007) (declining to consider postconviction argument that was not raised in the postconviction court); Azure v. State, 700 N.W.2d 443, 446-47 (Minn. 2005) (declining to consider postconviction claim as not properly before the supreme court because it was not raised in the postconviction court).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The postconviction 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.
Dated: March 17, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Michelle A. Larkin