2009-M-122             David James Doppler, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

MAJORITY:  In 1996, appellant David was found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder for the shooting death of Michael L. Sargent.  Appellant filed a direct appeal and requested that the case be remanded to consider his post-conviction petition that his trial counsel was ineffective.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the petition.  On appeal, we affirmed the conviction and the denial of the post-conviction petition. 

In March 2001, appellant filed a second petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.  The post-conviction court denied appellant’s petition, concluding that his claim was procedurally barred.  We affirmed.  

In August 2007, appellant filed a third petition for post-conviction relief alleging newly-discovered evidence and other claims.  Following an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court denied the petition for post-conviction relief.   This appeal followed.  We affirm.

First, the  post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying in part appellant’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the grounds that the affidavit evidence proffered by appellant in support of his request did not constitute newly-discovered evidence and that the related claims were procedurally barred.

Second, the  post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for relief on the ground that appellant failed to present newly-discovered evidence that was material and not doubtful.

CONCUR & DISSENT:  Justices Paul Anderson, Meyer, and Barry Anderson opined:  “I concur in part and respectfully dissent in part.  I agree with the majority that the affidavit of Rhonda Hanestad was properly Knaffla-barred, and that the affidavits and testimony of Heather Doppler Schultz and Joshua Doppler did not satisfy the Larrison or Rainer tests.  But I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Albert Logan’s affidavit did not merit an evidentiary hearing

In paragraph 10 of a sworn affidavit submitted with petitioner’s third post-conviction petition, Albert Logan stated, “I know that David Doppler did not kill Mike Sargent.  At the time I was convinced David could not be helped.”  The post-conviction court did not address this factual allegation when it denied petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing on Logan’s affidavit.  In fact, it appears that the post-conviction court may have had some doubts about what to do on this issue, because the court apparently neglected to remove a drafting comment from its February 28, 2008, Order and Memorandum indicating it struggled with how to address Logan’s allegation.  The comment reads simply, “Logan and paragraph 10???”

Given that there is a factual dispute about who actually killed Sargent, and given that Albert Logan claims to have personal knowledge that can resolve that dispute, I conclude that the post-conviction court abused its discretion by prohibiting an evidentiary hearing on Logan’s affidavit.  Admittedly, the allegation of petitioner’s innocence contained in Logan’s affidavit is bare bones.  We would typically require a more detailed allegation before we would order a hearing, but under the facts and circumstances present in this case, specifically the inconsistencies between the physical evidence and the testimony presented at trial, an evidentiary hearing on Logan’s claim is warranted. 

As we said in Opsahl, any doubt as to whether the post-conviction court should order an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the hearing.

Moreover, the post-conviction court did conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on the affidavits of Heather Doppler Schultz  and Joshua Doppler.  It would not have required a significant additional expenditure of judicial resources to have included Logan as part of that hearing. 

I would reverse the post-conviction court’s ruling as to Logan’s affidavit and remand for an evidentiary hearing to explore the claim made in paragraph 10 of Logan’s affidavit.  

               Dietzen (Magnuson, Page, and Gildea)

               Concur& Dissent:  Paul Anderson, Meyer, and Barry Anderson

[MURDER]