Court Opinion

ID: 9530872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:04:44.915809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:16.500364
License: Public Domain

PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. We have held that, “even where the legal basis was reasonably available, ‘this court may allow substantive review of [a] claim in limited situations where fairness so requires and when the petitioner did not “deliberately and inexcusably” fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.’ ” Gassler v. State, 590 N.W.2d 769, 771 (Minn.1999) (quoting Russell v. State, 562 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Minn. 1997)). While the issue raised by Ademo-di’s postconviction petition arguably was reasonably available at the time of his direct appeal, it cannot seriously be argued that it was not novel. Because of that novelty and the fact that it is clear that Ademodi did not “deliberately and inexcusably” fail to raise the issue on direct appeal, I believe that fairness requires us to consider this case on its merits.