United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Michelle Rae Wilson, OID #231460, MCF Shakopee, pro se
R. Marker, Esq., Ramsey County Attorney's Office, counsel
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. THORSON United States Magistrate Judge.
2010, Petitioner Michelle Rae Wilson was sentenced to 350
months in prison after she was convicted of killing Carl
Jackson, her ex-boyfriend. Petitioner requests relief from
her prison sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1,
Habeas Pet.) The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the
writ should not be granted on October 1, 2018. (Doc. No. 9.)
A response was filed on October 31, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11.)
On February 4, 2019, Petitioner moved for leave to supplement
the record and file a reply brief. (Doc. No. 12.) The Court
granted this motion, and Petitioner filed a reply and several
exhibits on March 6, 2019. (Doc. Nos 15-17.)
reasons stated below, and based on the files, records, and
proceedings herein, this Court recommends that the petition
was charged with two counts of second-degree murder in Ramsey
County District Court. After a jury trial, Petitioner was
found guilty on December 16, 2009, and sentenced on January
28, 2010. Petitioner was represented by private
counsel at trial.
filed a pro se appeal from her conviction on April
28, 2010. The Office of the Minnesota Appellate Public
Defender (“OMAPD”) determined that Petitioner was
ineligible for OMAPD representation. Petitioner challenged
that determination at the Minnesota Supreme Court, which
affirmed OMAPD's eligibility determination in an Order
dated June 7, 2010. (Doc. No. 11-1 at 3-4.) On June 18, 2010,
the Minnesota Court of Appeals directed Petitioner to remedy
several deficiencies in her appeal, including ordering the
transcript and making financial arrangements with the court
reporter. (Id. at 5-7.) On July 9, 2010, the
Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal
because Petitioner failed to comply with the court's
previous order to remedy deficiencies. (Id. at 8-9.)
The Minnesota Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition
for review on September 29, 2010. (Id. at 10.)
April 2012, Petitioner filed a request to proceed in forma
pauperis in relation to a yet-to-be-filed postconviction
action in state court. (Id. at 12.) This request was
denied on May 14, 2012. (Id. at 11.) The court
Defendant's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 563.01 was forwarded to this Court to
decide. . . .
The defendant's continued request for the district court
to grant her in forma pauperis status pursuant to Minn. Stat.
§ 563 is misplaced. This statute specifically governs
civil actions, NOT criminal actions. . . .
Again, this Court has no knowledge of the reasons for the
State Public Defender's initial denial of her application
but the defendant must again submit her application. . . .
The defendant has requested that this Court's court
reporter prepare a transcript of all proceedings before this
Court. Since the defendant has not followed the proper rules
to make this request, the court reporter does not have the
authority to certify to the Minnesota Court of Appeals that
she has made satisfactory financial arrangements.
In addition, the defendant's supplemental affidavit
requests the Court appoint an attorney to represent her.
Again, this Court has no authority to appoint the State
Public Defender or a private attorney to represent her for
postconviction relief proceedings.
(Id. at 12-14.)
filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief on
July 16, 2012. (Id. at 15.) In a letter dated July
20, 2012, the Chief Appellate Public Defender informed the
postconviction court that Petitioner was ineligible for
representation from the OMAPD in the proceeding.
(Id. at 54.) The court noted that Petitioner raised
a “multitude of issues, ” and continued to
“challenge the Court's denial of her request to
require the State to pay the costs associated with the