Minnesota: Federal Habeas Corpus

Exhaustion means first filing the federal constitutional issue in state court and giving the state court a chance to remedy the error before bringing the issue in federal court. Stated differently, a federal constitutional claim must be “fairly presented” in state court before a state prisoner may bring the claim in federal habeas corpus. [1] Claims that are unexhausted may face a procedural default.

Before bringing an issue that was raised on direct appeal in Minnesota, “‘state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process’ before presenting those issues in an application for habeas relief in federal court.” [2] This includes seeking discretionary review when that review is part of the ordinary and established state appellate process. [3]

In Minnesota, discretionary review to the Supreme Court may be sought for a variety of reasons:

The Supreme Court may exercise discretionary review of any Court of Appeals’ decision. The following criteria may be considered:

(1) the decision presents an important question on which the Supreme Court should rule;
(2) the Court of Appeals has ruled on the constitutionality of a statute;
(3) the Court of Appeals has decided a question in direct conflict with an applicable precedent of a Minnesota appellate court;
(4) the lower courts have so far departed from the accepted and usual course of justice that the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers; or
(5) a Supreme Court decision will help develop, clarify, or harmonize the law; and
1. the case calls for the application of a new principle or policy;
2. the resolution of the question presented has possible statewide impact; or
3. the question will likely recur unless resolved by the Supreme Court.

Minn. R. Crim. P. 29.04, Subd. 4. Because of the many ways that discretionary review may be sought, discretionary review is a necessary step in the path to exhaustion for purposes of federal habeas corpus.

One other potential pitfall is the “Knaffla Rule,” which emanated from the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Knaffla. [4] Federal courts are precluded from considering a habeas corpus claim by a state prisoner where the state court has disposed of the claim on state procedural grounds. [5] The Knaffla rule states that if a defendant takes a direct appeal, “all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” [6]

Applied to ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) claims, the Knaffla rule bars IAC claims from being brought in a motion for postconviction relief when the claims can be resolved on the basis of the trial record and when the known claim is not brought on direct appeal. [7] However, IAC claims are not barred by the Knaffla rule when the IAC claim requires the examination of evidence outside the record and additional fact-finding by the postconviction court and cannot be resolved on the record and briefs alone. [8] Generally, federal courts will not second-guess a state court decision holding a claim procedurally defaulted under the Knaffla rule. [9]

If all this sounds complicated, it is! If you or someone you love is in need of federal habeas corpus in Minnesota, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, today for a free consultation.

Citations:
1. McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1997).
2. Welch v. Lund, 616 F.3d 756, 758 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting O’Sullivan v. Boercekel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)).
3. Dixon v. Dormire, 263 F.3d 774, 777 (8th Cir. 2001).
4. State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976).
5. Clemons v. Luebbers, 381 F.3d 744, 750 (8th Cir. 2004).
6. 243 N.W.2d at 741.
7. Sontoya v. State, 829 N.W.2d 602, 604 (Minn. 2013).
8. Swaney v. State, 882 N.W.2d 207, 216 (Minn. 2016).
9. Murray v. Hvass, 269 F.3d 896, 899-900 (8th Cir. 2001).