You can't have your Kate and Edith too!

2016-M-333          Derrick Delmar Brocks, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. A15-2096, Supreme Court, August 10, 2016.

BACKGROUND:  On August 17, 1996, drug-dealer Brocks met James Nunn outside Brocks’ Minneapolis apartment.  They discussed their histories in gangs in Minneapolis and Detroit.  Brocks displayed his handgun and invited Nunn in to join a party.  They were friendly.

At the party were two women.  Greshawn was the mother of one of Brocks’ children.  Johnson had been dating Brocks for months.  Neither woman was aware of Brock’s relation with the other woman.  When Brocks was being friendly with Greshawn on a couch, Johnson gave Brocks a dirty look.  Johnson left the party with Nunn.

Brocks was angry and drove towards Johnson’s apartment.  He confronted Nunn and Johnson on the sidewalk and shouted at Johnson.  When Nunn tried to shield Johnson, Brocks shot him.  Standing over Nunn’s body, Brocks shot Nunn six more times.

Following a jury trial, the Hennepin County District Court convicted Brocks of first-degree

premeditated murder for the shooting death of Nunn. The district court sentenced Brocks to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

In 1998, the Supreme Court denied Brocks’ direct appeal.

In 2008, the Supreme Court denied Brocks’ first post-conviction appeal.

In 2010, the Supreme Court denied Brocks’ second post-conviction appeal.

In 2013, the Supreme Court denied Brocks’ third post-conviction appeal.

In 2015, Brocks filed this, his fourth post-conviction appeal.  Brocks again argued that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel was violated due to a conflict of interest and that we applied the wrong precedent in assessing this claim during his direct appeal. According to Brocks, precedent regarding “per se conflicts of interest,” not conflicts arising from mutual or joint representation, was applicable to his claim. He also argued that an evidentiary hearing was required to allow him to establish that his trial counsel had a per se conflict of interest.

The post-conviction court summarily denied the petition as both untimely under the statute of limitations and procedurally barred as waived and forfeited under the Knaffla doctrine against second appeals of issues that had been raised on an earlier appeal or should have been known and raised on an earlier appeal.

HELD:  Because appellant's post-conviction petition was untimely and failed to satisfy any exception to the post-conviction statute of limitations, the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying appellant relief.

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

               [CRIME] [MURDER] [PREMEDITATED] [FIRST-DEGREE] [GANGS] [DRUGS] [GILDEA]

Date: August 10, 2016