2009-M-102             State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Russell John Hurd, Appellant.

First, the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied relief on the first six claims raised in appellant’s second post-conviction petition because all of these claims lack merit. 

Second, the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when, after an evidentiary hearing, it denied appellant a new trial on the basis of new evidence that would be offered to exculpate appellant because the evidence was inadmissible hearsay.     Affirmed.

In 1993, a jury found appellant, Russell John Hurd, guilty of one count of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder for the 1981 homicide of Viola Linnerooth.  Based on the first-degree murder conviction, the district court sentenced Hurd to life in prison.  Hurd appealed his conviction to this court, but obtained a stay of the appeal in order to pursue post-conviction relief.  The post-conviction court denied Hurd’s first petition for post-conviction relief in 1996; Hurd did not appeal that ruling or otherwise seek to reinstate his direct appeal.  

Hurd filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in 2007, which the post-conviction court denied.  The 2007 post-conviction court summarily denied most of Hurd’s claims.  After an evidentiary hearing on Hurd’s remaining claim—a motion for a new trial based on new evidence—the post-conviction court denied Hurd’s request for post-conviction relief.  Hurd appeals from the denial of his petition.  We affirm.

               Gildea  (Magnuson, Page, Paul Anderson, Meyer, Barry Anderson, and Dietzen)

               [MURDER]