Shot-gun Butchery during Drug Robbery

2006-M-09   Justin Brooks Stiles, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent

DESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME: On January 8, 1998, Stiles and four friends set out to rob 18-year-old drug dealer Heinz Moorman of a half-pound of marijuana.  During a pretended drug buy, Stiles and Charlie Seepersaud shot Moorman several times with sawed-off shotguns, killing him.

PAST DECISIONS:  The jury convicted Stiles of first-degree murder and second-degree murder.  The trial judge sentenced him to life in prison.   Stiles did not exercise his right to a direct appeal in the two years after his conviction and sentence.

 In 2003, the Supreme Court rejected his first post-conviction appeal.  It rejected his claims.  First, it denied relief based on the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on three lesser-included offenses.  Second, it denied relief on two evidentiary rulings of the trial court.

THIS DECISION:  On Stiles’ second post-conviction appeal, Justice Gildea joined in the unanimous decision of Justice Hanson to uphold the conviction and the life sentence.

Stiles based this second post-conviction appeal on two opposing arguments.  First, he argued that the first appellate rejected had been replaced by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s subsequent 2005 decision with a new rule of law in Dahlin v. State of Minnesota which clarified jury instructions on lesser-included offenses.  Second, he argued that Dahlin did not create a new rule of law, so the first of Stiles ‘appeals was wrongly denied.

“We conclude that Stiles cannot prevail either way.  If Dahlin is a new rule of law, it does not apply retroactively to Stiles’ case, which was not pending when Dahlin was decided.  If Dahlin is not a new rule of law, Stiles’ lesser-included offense claims are barred by Knaffla, because they would have been known at the time of his appeal from the denial of his first post-conviction petition, and by Minn. Stat.  509.04, subd. 3, because Stiles actually argued those claims in his first post-conviction appeal.

“Accordingly, we decline to decide whether Dahlin announced a new rule of law because that decision is not necessary to the resolution of this appeal.  We hold that the post-conviction court did not err in denying Stiles’ petition without an evidentiary hearing.”

DATE OF DECISION:  June 15, 2006

RECORD NUMBER:  2006-104

FULL OPINION: 

DESCRIPTION:  [MURDER] [DRUGS]