2009-M-112             Otha Eric Townsend, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

Townsend was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of Candis Koch Wilson. 

In 1996, Townsend filed a direct appeal and argued that evidence of an assault committed on the same night as the killing was erroneously admitted.  We concluded that while some of the evidence was admitted erroneously, any error was harmless and affirmed his conviction.

In 1998, Townsend filed his first petition for post-conviction relief, alleging various errors in addition to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  We concluded that all of Townsend’s claims were barred by Knaffla and affirmed his conviction. 

In 2002, Townsend filed his second petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that on direct appeal we had incorrectly applied the harmless error test.  We analyzed Townsend’s claim substantively and again affirmed his conviction.

In 2006, we affirmed the denial of Townsend’s third post-conviction petition because all of his claims were barred by Knaffla.  .

In this post-conviction appeal, Townsend argues that the 2005 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (2008) is not constitutional.  The amendment added the provision that “[a] petition for post-conviction relief after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction or sentence,” as well as a statutory time limit for filing post-conviction petitions.  Specifically, Townsend argues that the amendment violated the Single Subject and Title Clause of the Minnesota Constitution, which states “No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed it its title.”  We disagree.

The amendment here does not violate the Single Subject and Title Clause.  The amendment is contained in Minnesota Laws 2005, chapter 136, which is entitled “An act relating to public safety [and] imposing criminal and civil penalties.”  The post-conviction amendment relates to public safety as well as criminal and civil penalties.  Additionally, the specific article in which the amendment is contained is entitled “Courts and Public Defender” and includes various provisions relating to court redistricting, court fees, property seizure, and public access to criminal data.  We conclude that the post-conviction amendment is properly categorized.  Although it is certainly a wide-ranging bill, the various sections “fall under some one general idea.”  Therefore, we reject Townsend’s argument and hold that the 2005 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 590.01 does not violate the Single Subject and Title Clause.

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

[MURDER]