Domesric Murder over Chili' in St. Paul

2006-M-20          Richard Brian Bruestle, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

DESCRIPTION OF CRIME:  On December 7, 2002, Bruestle was living in the St. Paul home of his aunt, Nell McIntyre.  They argued about the taste of her chili.  She ordered him out of her house.  He believed she had called the police, which enraged him.  He stabbed her 15 times and emptied his gun into her body.

THE TRIAL PROCEEDING:  On March 5, 2003, appellant Richard Bruestle pleaded guilty to and was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree premeditated murder.  Apparently in exchange for this plea to murder in the first degree, the state dismissed the life without release count. 

At the plea hearing, the public defender told the district court that Bruestle was “very adamant about taking responsibility for his actions, despite my prodding to suggest that there is nothing to lose by going to trial.”  Bruestle’s waiver of his rights was put on the record, and, during this part of the proceedings, his counsel specifically questioned Bruestle regarding his waiver of a mental illness defense. 

NO DIRECT APPEAL:  Bruestle did not file a direct appeal or a motion to withdraw his plea within the time allowed for a direct appeal. 

SUBSEQUENT CRIME:    On October 2, 2003, while in prison for McIntyre’s murder, Bruestle attacked a fellow inmate and cut the inmate’s throat, apparently acting without provocation.  The district court hearing the prison assault case ordered that a Rule 20 mental evaluation be performed to determine Bruestle’s sanity at the time of the attack and his competence to proceed to trial.  In addition to the court-ordered evaluation, Bruestle’s counsel—a different attorney from the counsel who represented Bruestle in the homicide proceeding—retained an expert to perform an additional Rule 20 evaluation. 

On January 26, 2004, Bruestle, with the assistance of new counsel, filed the current petition for post-conviction relief, asking that the judgment of conviction and sentence against him for McIntyre’s murder be vacated and a new trial ordered or, in the alternative, that an evidentiary hearing be held or that his sentence be reduced.  Bruestle based his request for relief on his claim that he was incompetent to plead guilty and that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not pursue an insanity defense or make an incompetency argument.  

THIS APPEAL:  Justice Gildea joined the unanimous decision by Justice Paul Anderson on this first post-conviction appeal to uphold Bruestle’s guilty plea and sentence.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not required when petitioner, who entered a guilty plea, could not show that he was so likely legally insane at the time of the killing, or so likely incompetent to stand trial at the time he pleaded guilty, that his trial counsel’s decision not to pursue an insanity defense or an incompetency argument was ineffective assistance of counsel.

DATE OF DECISION:  August 10, 2006

RECORD NUMBER:  2006-142

FULL OPINION:  A05-1707,

DESCRIPTION:  [MURDER]  [INSANITY DEFENSE]