2010-M-165             Demetrius Devell Dobbins, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

We affirm the post-conviction court’s order with the exception that we hold that the court abused its discretion when it found that Dobbins is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding his claim of false testimony.  Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand to the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to address whether Dobbins is entitled to post-conviction relief on the basis of his false testimony allegation.

An Anoka County jury found Demetrius Devell Dobbins guilty of first-degree premeditated murder for the death of Quintin Roderick Lavender.  We affirmed Dobbins’s conviction on direct appeal in 2006.  In 2009 Dobbins filed a petition for post-conviction relief and the post-conviction court denied the petition. 

Dobbins now appeals the denial of his petition, arguing that he is entitled to post-conviction relief because (1) he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) the State claimed that he killed Lavender, yet he was charged with and convicted of aiding and abetting a crime; (3) newly discovered evidence establishes a witness testified falsely; and (4) his right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when our court did not reverse his conviction on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct.  We reverse in part and remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.

 Petitioner Demetrius Devell Dobbins was charged with causing the death of Quintin Roderick Lavender at the home of Dobbins’s girlfriend, C.S.  State v. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d 492, 498 (Minn. 2006).  A jury found Dobbins guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and the Anoka County District Court convicted him of that offense and sentenced him to life in prison.  Id. at 500.  We affirmed the conviction.  Id. at 513.  The facts surrounding Lavender’s death are thoroughly set forth in Dobbins and are recounted here only insofar as they are relevant to this post-conviction appeal.

First, petitioner’s claim that he was improperly convicted of aiding and abetting is Knaffla-barred because Petitioner knew the nature of his conviction at the time of his direct appeal.  

Second, petitioner’s claim that the Minnesota Supreme Court violated his equal protection rights by affirming his conviction did not arise until his direct appeal was complete and therefore the post-conviction court abused its discretion in concluding that petitioner’s equal protection claim is Knaffla-barred; nevertheless, petitioner is not entitled to relief because his claim lacks merit.

Third, when the record conclusively shows that petitioner’s appellate counsel was not ineffective, the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Fourth, the post-conviction court abused its discretion when it denied petitioner an evidentiary hearing regarding his false testimony claim when the record does not conclusively show petitioner is not entitled to relief on the ground of evidence of false testimony.

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

               Took no part:  Stras

               [MURDER]