2011-M-177             Justin Lamont Buckingham, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

In February, 2007, Buckingham and an acquaintance, Larry Hatcher, threatened the victim, Ricardo Walker, during an argument outside of Gabby’s Bar in northeast Minneapolis.  After the argument, Walker left in a minivan with two other people.  When Walker stopped at an intersection, Hatcher and Buckingham pulled up alongside Walker’s minivan in a white SUV.  Id.  Someone inside the SUV fired five or six shots at the minivan, striking Walker in the head with one of the shots.  When police officers later rendered emergency assistance, Walker made a dying declaration that connected Hatcher and Buckingham to the shooting. 

A jury found Buckingham guilty, and the district court convicted and sentenced him, as an accomplice of first-degree premeditated murder, two counts of attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and three counts of attempted first-degree drive-by-shooting murder.  On the conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, the district court sentenced Buckingham to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

On direct appeal, Buckingham argued: (1) his statements to police should have been suppressed because they were taken in violation of State v. Scale, and without the knowledge and consent of his attorney; (2) the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree murder; (3) due to a mathematical error, his concurrent sentences for attempted first-degree drive-by-shooting murder exceeded the statutory maximum; and (4) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct.  We affirmed Buckingham’s convictions but modified his sentence.

Buckingham subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that the district court admitted his statements to police in violation of his constitutional rights, his court-ordered psychological evaluation was incomplete, the district court gave the jury an erroneous accomplice liability instruction, and his trial counsel was ineffective. 

The post-conviction court denied Buckingham’s petition for relief without a hearing, rejecting Buckingham’s claims on the merits and further holding that most of Buckingham’s claims were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla.

Buckingham appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.

HELD:  The post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because appellant’s claims are procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, because all of his claims on this appeal were already known or should have been known at the time of earlier appeals.

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

[MURDER]