Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. State

January 27, 2005

ROBERT MARLYN TAYLOR, PETITIONER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, RESPONDENT.



Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

The post-conviction court properly denied the petition for post-conviction relief because petitioner's claim of racial discrimination in the state's use of a peremptory strike was previously raised and denied on direct appeal.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anderson, Russell A., Justice.

Affirmed.

OPINION

Robert Marlyn Taylor was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for the killing of John Turner and sentenced to life in prison. State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. 2002). The facts underlying Taylor's conviction can be found in our decision on direct appeal. Id. On direct appeal, Taylor raised, inter alia, a Batson issue claiming that the state's peremptory strike of a juror constituted purposeful racial discrimination and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d at 196. We denied his claim. Id. Taylor subsequently brought a petition for post-conviction relief raising the same Batson issue previously decided on direct appeal. Before us now is Taylor's appeal of the post-conviction court's summary denial of his petition.

A post-conviction court "may summarily deny a petition when the issues raised in it have previously been decided by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in the same case." Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2004). Further, this court held in State v. Knaffla that once a direct appeal has been taken, "all matters raised therein and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for post-conviction relief." 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976) ("Knaffla rule"). There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review. Ives v. State, 655 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn. 2003). The second exception may be applied if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not "deliberately and inexcusably" fail to raise the issue on direct appeal. Fox v. State, 474 N.W.2d 821, 825 (Minn. 1991).

Taylor raised the same Batson issue on direct appeal and this court denied his claim. Therefore, under Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3, the post-conviction court properly denied Taylor's petition. Further, Taylor's claim is barred under Knaffla and neither exception to Knaffla applies in this case.*fn1

...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.