Opinion
A23-0059
09-01-2023
Bruce Renault Fry, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-18-18074
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Cleary, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In 2019, a jury found appellant Bruce Renault Fry guilty of second-degree murder. The district court imposed an executed sentence of 480 months.
2. Fry filed a direct appeal, requesting a new trial because (1) the district court erroneously denied his request for a jury instruction; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) the district court erred when it denied his request for alternative trial counsel; and (4) the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a 480-month sentence. This court affirmed and the supreme court denied further review. State v. Fry, No. A19-1031 (Minn.App. July 20, 2020), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2020).
3. In August 2022, Fry petitioned the district court for postconviction relief based on the following claims: (1) improper jury instructions; (2) an excessive sentence; (3) denial of his request for new trial counsel; and (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court denied Fry's postconviction petition, determining that his claims were procedurally barred because they were raised in his direct appeal.
4. Although Fry raised an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal, he altered the basis for this claim in his postconviction petition. In his postconviction petition, Fry argued that his trial counsel was ineffective based on counsel's failure to: (1) demand a speedy trial; (2) raise a mental-health defense; (3) call certain witnesses; and (4) argue against an upward departure to the sentencing guidelines.
5. In denying Fry relief, the district court stated that Fry's claims that were different than those raised on direct appeal were denied because Fry "knew or should have known of the issues on appeal and raised them then."
6. Fry appeals the district court's denial of his postconviction petition. The denial of postconviction relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Hannon v. State, 957 N.W.2d 425, 432 (Minn. 2021). We will not reverse unless the district court "exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings." Id. (quotation omitted).
7. "A petition for postconviction relief [filed] after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction or sentence." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (2022). When a postconviction petition follows a direct appeal, "all claims raised in the direct appeal and all claims of which the defendant knew or should have known at the time of the direct appeal are procedurally barred." Davis v. State, 880 N.W.2d 373, 377 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted); State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976).
8. There are two exceptions to Knaffla's procedural bar on claims that were known or should have been known by a petitioner on direct appeal. Crow v. State, 923 N.W.2d 2, 9 (Minn. 2019). First, a claim may be considered when "an issue is so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time of the direct appeal." Id. (quotation omitted). Second, when "a court decides that hearing the claim is in the interest of justice [because] fairness so requires and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal, the claim may also be heard." Id. at 9-10 (quotation omitted).
9. The district court determined that Fry's postconviction claims were Knaffla barred. Fry challenged the district court's jury instructions, his sentence, the denial of his request for new trial counsel, and trial counsel's effectiveness on direct appeal. In his postconviction petition, Fry altered his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Despite the assertion of alternative grounds, Fry was aware of the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims at the time of his direct appeal and he could have, and should have, raised them then. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Fry's postconviction petition was procedurally barred.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's postconviction 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.