2006-M-17 Derrick
Ramon Dukes, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State
of Minnesota, Respondent.
DESCRIPTION OF CRIME: On April 1, 1994, Dukes drove Steve Morrison and Kevin Lewis from
Minneapolis to St. Paul to commit armed robberies. They confronted and
shot at Bennie Chaney, but he escaped unharmed. Chaney identified the
three defendants. A witness reported the license plate and testified that
he saw a hand on the driver’s side protruding and holding a smoking gun.
Dukes had been driving and Morrison and Lewis had been riding in the front and
rear passenger seats.
Fifteen minutes
later, and a block from the Chaney crime. Lewis and Morrison shot Joe
McKinney while robbing him.
THE TRIAL: A Ramsey County jury found Dukes
guilty of first-degree felony murder of Joe McKinney and attempted first-degree
felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery of Bennie Chaney. Appellant was
sentenced to consecutive terms of life and 180 months' imprisonment.
DIRECT APPEAL: In 1996, Justice Ed Stringer wrote a
unanimous opinion upholding the convictions and sentences.
FIRST
POST-CONVICTION APPEAL: In 2001, Justice Paul Anderson wrote a unanimous
opinion that denied four of Dukes’ claims, but returned two issues for
clarification by the Court of Appeals.
In 2003, Justice
James Gilbert wrote an opinion reviewing the further findings by the Court of
Appeals regarding the two issues remanded for further review. Here, the
Supreme Court again upheld Dukes convictions and sentences.
THIS DECISION: In 2006, Justice Helen Meyer wrote a
unanimous opinion to deny Dukes’ second petition for post-conviction relief,
thus again upholding his convictions and sentences.
Dukes’ sole claim involved a 2004 decision by the United States
Supreme Court which changed the rules for admitting hearsay statements by
someone who is no longer available for confrontation and cross-examination by a
defendant. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Dukes asked the Supreme Court to apply the 2004 Crawford rule
retroactively to his case because the admission at trial of a transcript of a
co-defendant’s statements made at the co-defendant’s guilty plea hearing
violated Dukes’ constitutional right to confrontation.
Lewis had testified at his own plea agreement hearing as to
Dukes’ participation. Lewis also promised to testify at Dukes’
trial. But at the time of Dukes’ trial, Lewis withdrew his guilty
plea and refused to testify. Dukes’ prosecutors submitted Lewis’ confession
transcript and the trial court admitted it as evidence.
The rule about applying United States Supreme Court decisions
retroactively to case that have completed their trial and first round of
appeals is that the new decision will not be applied retroactively unless an
exception, which is “known as the ‘watershed rule’ exception, applies when the
new rule ‘requires the observance of those procedures that are implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty’ or ‘alter our understanding of the bedrock
procedural elements that must be found to vitiate the fairness of any
particular conviction.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Crawford did not
create such a fundamental new rule. Because Dukes’ trial and first full
appeal were completed in 1996, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the 2004 Crawford
decision would not be applied to Dukes retroactively. Thus, it upheld
Dukes’ convictions and sentences.
DATE OF DECISION: August 3, 2006
RECORD NUMBER: 2006-134
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER] ROBBERY]
No comments:
Post a Comment