2014-M-257       Michael Jon Staunton, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

MAJORITY:  Appellant Michael Jon Staunton was found guilty by a St. Louis County jury of

several offenses, including first-degree felony murder (kidnapping), in connection with the stabbing death of Darryl Kokochak.  The district court entered a judgment of conviction, and sentence was imposed. 

Staunton filed a direct appeal, which was stayed while he pursued his first petition for post-conviction relief. 

The first post-conviction court granted Staunton’s request to withdraw his petition without prejudice.  Six months later, we granted Staunton’s motion to dismiss his direct appeal. 

Staunton subsequently filed a second post-conviction petition, which was resolved without a decision on the merits. 

In response to Staunton’s third post-conviction petition, the post-conviction court held an

evidentiary hearing.  After considering the evidence presented, the post-conviction court

denied Staunton’s third post-conviction petition.  We deemed the third petition to be

timely under the effective date provision of Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2012), and

then proceeded to consider the merits of the petition.  We ultimately affirmed the denial

of Staunton’s third post-conviction petition. 

In 2012 Staunton, proceeding pro se, filed a fourth post-conviction petition, which the post-conviction court summarily denied as untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4. 

On appeal from the denial of his fourth petition, Staunton effectively contends that his

earlier appeal of the denial of his third post-conviction petition was a “direct appeal,” and

therefore, his fourth petition was timely filed under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(2),

because the fourth petition was filed within two years of “an appellate court’s disposition

of the petitioner’s direct appeal.”  Id.  We conclude that Staunton’s reliance on section

590.01, subdivision 4(a)(2), is misplaced because his earlier appeal of his third

post-conviction petition was not a direct appeal.  We therefore affirm the summary denial

of Staunton’s fourth post-conviction petition.

HELD:  1. Minnesota Statutes § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(2) (2012), allows a defendant to file a petition for post-conviction relief within two years of an appellate court’s disposition of the petitioner’s direct appeal, not the disposition of the petitioner’s first review by post-conviction proceeding.

2. The post-conviction court did not err when it summarily denied appellant’s fourth post-conviction petition because the petition, files, and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petition was time barred by section 590.01, subdivision 4(a).

 Affirmed.

CONCUR:  Justices Page, Anderson, and Lillehaug opined: “I would affirm the post-conviction court’s denial of relief.  Therefore, I concur in the result.  I would reach that result after disposing of Staunton’s claims on the merits.

Dietzen (Gildea, Page, Anderson, Stras, Wright, and Lillehaug)

            Concur:  Page, Anderson, and Lillehaug

[MURDER]

A12-1971,