If it is really none of your business, do not seek revenge for your dead-beat relatives!

2016-M-311         Craig Matthew Hohenwald, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

This is Hohenwald’s fifth appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

THE CRIME: Larry and Lois Steenerson sold a farm to other members of the Hohenwald family, and later sued them for non-payment on the notes for the farm.  They did not sue drug-user Craig Hohenwald, but he bore a grudge against the Steenersons for suing members of his family.

Just before midnight on February 9, 2009, Hohenwald entered the Steenerson home near Mora.  Larry Steenerson summoned help with two interrupted 911 calls.  A deputy apprehended a blood-soaked Hohenwald at t scene.  Larry Steenerson had been stabbed at least 28 times.  Lois Steenerson had been stabbed at least eight times, including two slashes to her jugular vein.  They bled to death.

After a bench trial in 2010, the district court convicted Hohenwald of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder.  The court then sentenced Hohenwald to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on each of the convictions.

In a 2012 direct appeal to the Supreme Court in 2012, Hohenwald focused on four grounds.  First, he asserted that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the State conducted the grand jury proceedings in violation of the criminal rules.  Second, he claimed that the record contains insufficient evidence to convict him of first-degree premeditated murder because the State failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in the heat of passion.  Third, he argued the prosecutor committed misconduct during witness questioning.  Fourth, he contended the district court committed reversible error when it admitted a witness’s out-of-court statement.  The Supreme Court held against Hohenwald.

On July 11, 2014, Hohenwald filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. By order dated October 24, 2014, the district court denied the petition, explaining that the claim of newly discovered evidence failed on its merits and that the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was Knaffla-barred.

Three days later, on October 27, 2014, Hohenwald filed a pro se amended

post-conviction petition. The proposed amendment contained new exhibits and examples

to support his claims. In an order dated October 28, 2014, the district court denied

Hohenwald's amended petition as untimely.

On November 21, 2014, Hohenwald filed a pro se "motion to reconsider" the

order that denied his amended petition for post-conviction relief. On November 24, 2014,

Hohenwald filed a pro se "motion to reconsider" the order that denied his initial

post-conviction petition. On January 16, 2015, the district court denied both motions,

stating that no new claims had been raised and concluding that there were no grounds to

grant an evidentiary hearing. 

 

THIS MATTER:  On March 16, 2015, almost five months after the two October 2014 orders were filed, Hohenwald appealed from the October 2014 orders and from the January 2015 order.

The State moved to dismiss Hohenwald's appeal on two grounds: (1) Hohenwald failed to appeal the October 2014orders within 60 days after their entry as required by Minn. R. Crim. P. 29.03, subd. 3(d); and (2) the January 2015 order denying the motions to reconsider was not appealable.

We deferred our ruling on the State's motion to dismiss and directed the parties to address, in addition to the merits of the appeal, the following two questions: (1) whether we should construe Hohenwald's motions to reconsider as subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief; and (2) if so, what the effect would be on our authority to review the district court's October 2014 orders.

HOLDING:  Hohenwald had 60 days to appeal from the October 2014 orders.  Instead, he waited nearly 5 months before he filed his untimely appeal. Further, the district court's January 16, 2015 order was not appealable at all. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal and the motion to dismiss must be granted.

A motion to reconsider a final order in a post-conviction case does not toll the time period to appeal. Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

Lillehaug (Gildea, Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, and Hudson)

 [CRIME] [MURDER] [PREMEDITATED]

Date: February 24, 2016