Minnesota Lawyer
Criminal
Postconviction Relief
Newly Discovered Evidence
This case presented the issue of whether the District Court abused its discretion when it summarily denied petitioner’s second postconviction petition as time barred because petitioner’s postconviction claim failed to satisfy the newly-discovered-evidence or the interests-of-justice exceptions. Petitioner was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder for his involvement in the 1996 drive by shooting death. In this postconviction petition, petitioner asserted a newly discovered evidence claim based on statements made by the intended victim of the gang related shooting to law enforcement officers indicating that the fatal gunshots were fired from a gray car. Petitioner alleged that the State committed a Brady violation when it failed to disclose this exculpatory information to him before his trial. The District Court summarily denied petitioner’s postconviction petition as time barred because it does not satisfy the newly-discovered-evidence or the interests-of-justice exceptions. Petitioner appealed.
The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that petitioner’s second postconviction petition was time barred because petitioner’s postconviction claim failed to satisfy the newly discovered evidence or the interests of justice exceptions. Affirmed.
A22-1020 Blanche v. State (Hennepin County)
Orders
Attorney Discipline
Reinstatement
Alan F. Pendleton was reinstated to the practice of law.
