Opinion ID: 2220036
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Absence of Appellate Review

Text: Finally, but perhaps most critically, because we dismissed appellant's direct appeal for failure to file a brief, he has not received appellate review of his claims. Although there may be extreme cases in which an excessive delay, without excuse, may alone justify denial of postconviction relief,    convicted defendants are generally entitled to at least one right of review. Rairdon, 557 N.W.2d at 322 (internal citation omitted). Indeed, we have suggested that a petition cannot be barred as untimely where the petitioner has not been heard on appeal. In Black, for example, we noted that although excessive delay can be a basis for dismissal, [a]n exception to this rule is if the petitioner never received a review of his case by an appellate court. 560 N.W.2d at 85. Likewise, we clarified in Sutherlin that [a] lengthy delay in filing a petition for postconviction relief may in itself provide a sufficient basis for affirming the dismissal of the petition when there has already been a direct appeal.  574 N.W.2d at 432 (emphasis added). We are cognizant of prior cases in which we have relied in part or in whole on untimeliness grounds to uphold a district court's denial of a petition where the petitioner had not received appellate review of his claims. See McMaster, 551 N.W.2d at 218-19; Houghton, 296 Minn. at 495, 207 N.W.2d at 64; Gaulke, 296 Minn. at 487, 206 N.W.2d at 652. But in each of these cases, the petitioner had been granted a hearing. [6] In light of the unique facts of this case, the district court's failure to consider this factor contributes to our conclusion that the district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief and motion for an evidentiary hearing.
Because the petition, files, and records do not conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2006). The district court thus abused its discretion in summarily denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief and motion for an evidentiary hearing under the facts and circumstances of this case. We recognize that appellant's burden of proving the truth of the facts set forth in his petition will be especially difficult to meet in light of the overwhelming evidence presented against him at trial and his efforts to suborn perjury. See Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2006) (Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the burden of proof of the facts alleged in the petition shall be upon the petitioner to establish the facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence.). We do not intimate how the district court should rule on the timeliness or merits of appellant's petition, but only require that an evidentiary hearing be held to consider appellant's claims. Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.