2010-M-132             Brett Randall Walen, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed a petition for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing when the allegedly non-disclosed forensic report was not material and therefore did not result in a due process violation under Brady v. Maryland, and the report did not contain newly discovered, exculpatory evidence.

On May 23, 1995, a jury found the petitioner, Brett Randall Walen, guilty of first-degree premeditated murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2008) for the killing of Keith Wallace.  The Rice County District Court convicted Walen and sentenced him to life in prison.  Our opinion in State v. Walen, 563 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. 1997) details the facts underlying Walen’s conviction.

 Walen appeals the post-conviction court’s summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.  Walen asserts that before his trial the State failed to disclose a report prepared by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.  Walen argues that the failure to disclose this report violates Brady v. Maryland, and he is therefore entitled to a new trial.  Walen also argues in the alternative that the same report is newly discovered, exculpatory evidence entitling him to a new trial.  Because the report is not material under a Brady or newly-discovered exculpatory evidence analysis, we hold that the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walen’s petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

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

               [MURDER]