Opinion ID: 2227991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Object to Grand Jury Indictment

Text: Doppler argues that his second attorney of record acted ineffectively by failing to object to an indictment that was issued by a grand jury impaneled more than 14 days after Doppler's first court appearance. Rule 8.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, in certain situations, a grand jury must be impaneled within 14 days of a defendant's first court appearance. Doppler argues that Rule 8.01 is not waivable and that, because Rule 8.01 is not waivable, his case should have been dismissed. Rule 8.01 requires that: If the offense charged in the complaint is a homicide and the prosecuting attorney notifies the court that the case will be presented to the grand jury, or if the offense is punishable by life imprisonment, the presentation of the case to the grand jury shall commence within 14 days from the date of defendant's appearance in the court under this rule, and an indictment or report of no indictment shall be returned within a reasonable time. Minn. R. Crim P. 8.01. In order to clarify the operation of Rule 8.01, we begin our examination of this claim under the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. Under the prejudice prong, Doppler must show by a preponderance of the evidence that objecting to the indictment would have changed the outcome of his trial. To prevail, he must show that defense counsel cannot waive the 14-day requirement of Rule 8.01 and that, had his second attorney of record objected to the indictment, his case would have been dismissed. The purpose of Rule 8.01 is to ensure the defendant's right to a timely determination of whether there is sufficient evidence to require him to stand trial. State v. Genung, 481 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Minn.App. 1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn., April 13, 1992) (referencing State v. Florence, 306 Minn. 442, 456-57, 239 N.W.2d 892, 902 (1976)). While Rule 8.01 itself does not specifically provide for waiver of the 14-day time requirement, the criminal rules as a whole are intended to provide for the just, speedy determination of criminal proceedings   . They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay. Minn. R.Crim. P. 1.02. Within five days of Doppler's arrest and three days of his first court appearance, Doppler's attorney informed the county attorney that Doppler planned to challenge the admissibility of his May 17 confession. Doppler's attorney and the county attorney then agreed that the county attorney would not impanel the grand jury until after Doppler challenged the admissibility of his confession at the omnibus hearing and had the opportunity to fully consider the county attorney's proffered plea agreement. Both Doppler's attorney and the county attorney believed that delaying the impaneling of the grand jury was a good idea. If the court suppressed Doppler's May 17 confession before the grand jury was impaneled, then Doppler's case might never have gone to the grand jury. The county attorney did not want to incur the expense and delay of impaneling a grand jury, only to recess that jury for the purpose of deciding whether Doppler's confession would be admissible, when the issue of admissibility could be determined prior to impaneling the grand jury. Further, if Doppler had accepted the county attorney's proffered plea agreement, he would have avoided having his case go to the grand jury. In his affidavit to the postconviction court, the county attorney stated that, had Doppler's attorney not agreed to waive the 14-day time requirement, he would have impaneled the grand jury within the required 14 days and then recessed that grand jury to await the outcome of the suppression hearing. Doppler argues that he was harmed by the delay in impaneling the grand jury. However, Doppler admits that he knew that his attorney was challenging the admissibility of his confession. Moreover, we are hard-pressed to believe Doppler's claim that neither of his attorneys informed him of the county attorney's proffered plea agreement. We find it incongruous for Doppler to seek to benefit from a delay in impaneling the grand jury, through a pre-grand jury suppression hearing and the opportunity to fully consider a plea agreement, and then to argue that he was harmed by that delay. We conclude that holding a pre-grand jury suppression hearing and allowing a defendant to consider a plea agreement are in keeping with the purposes of Rule 8.01 and the criminal rules as a whole. Therefore, we hold that a defendant may waive the Rule 8.01 requirement that presentation of a case to the grand jury must commence within 14 days of the defendant's first court appearance. Doppler, through his first attorney, waived the 14-day requirement of Rule 8.01. Because we conclude that the 14-day requirement of Rule 8.01 is waivable and that Doppler waived the requirement, we also conclude that Doppler's case would not have been dismissed had his second attorney of record objected to the grand jury indictment against Doppler. Accordingly, we hold that Doppler was not prejudiced by his attorney's failure to object to the grand jury indictment and that, therefore, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail. Because Doppler's claim fails under the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, we need not examine the attorney's performance under the deficiency prong.