2006-M-28 Otha
Eric Townsend, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
DESCRIPTION OF CRIME: On October 31,
1992, Candis Koch-Wilson took Otha Eric Townsend to the St. Paul
home of her friend Lisa M.
Johnson. They sampled marijuana which Johnson had for sale, and Townsend
agreed to buy it.
At 2:00 a.m.,
Koch-Wilson took Townsend to her nearby ATM machine to get Townsend his cash
for the transaction. A short time later, Townsend returned alone to
Johnson’s home. He robbed and shot her and left her for dead.
Summoned by neighbors, police sent her to the hospital at 3:00 a.m.
At 4:00 a.m.,
Koch-Wilson’s body was found near the ATM. The autopsy later placed her
time of death between 2:20 and 2:40 a.m.
In the following
days: 1) Johnson identified Townsend from a photo array; 2) Townsend’s
partially-burned car was found with Koch=Wilson’s blood, 3) police found
ammunition at the apartment of Townsend’s girlfriend which matched with bullets
in Koch-Wilson’s body and shells from Johnson’s home; and 4) a drinking glass
at Johnson’s home had the fingerprints of Townsend and Koch-Wilson.
Over a year
later, Townsend was apprehended at a homeless shelter in Texas.
THE SEPARATE
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS: Townsend won a motion to sever the trials of charges
involving Koch-Wilson from those charges involving Johnson.
After his
first-degree murder conviction, Townsend pleaded guilty to attempted murder in
the second degree in the Johnson assault. He was sentenced to 153 months, to
run consecutive to the first-degree murder conviction and life sentence for the
Koch-Wilson killing.
DIRECT APPEAL: On April 26, 1996, Justice Sondra Gardebring
wrote a unanimous opinion that denied Townsend’s direct appeal on the murder
conviction. While it was error to admit several pieces of evidence at
trial, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the errors were harmless because
there was so much other evidence presented at trial.
“We liken the evidence of Johnson's pregnancy, her physical
condition after the assault, and the condition of her apartment to that
considered in” other cases where the errors were harmless.
THE FIRST POST-CONVICTION APPEAL: On July 30, 1998, Justice Gilbert wrote a unanimous opinion
which denied Townsend’s first post-conviction appeal. The Minnesota
Supreme Court rejected Townsend’s multiple claims including ineffective assistance of
counsel, violation of his right to counsel, violation of his right to due
process, and prosecutorial misconduct.
THE SECOND POST-CONVICTION APPEAL: On June 27, 2002, Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz wrote a
unanimous opinion which denied Townsend’s second post-conviction appeal.
The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Townsend’s multiple claims including
THIS APPEAL: On October 26, 2006, Justice Gildea Joined
Justice Sam Hanson’s unanimous opinion which denied Townsend’s third
post-conviction appeal.
Townsend made two arguments as to why his claims should not be
barred by his failure to raise them in earlier appeals. First,
Townsend contends that this court may take notice of plain error affecting
substantial rights even when those errors were not previously raised. Second,
Townsend asserts that he has not had an adequate opportunity to seek a remedy
for the claimed violations of his constitutional and statutory rights.
Specifically, Townsend argues that his appellate counsel on direct appeal
intentionally failed to file a motion to withdraw and that, although Townsend
signed a waiver that he wished to proceed pro se, this failure to file a motion
to withdraw rendered the proceedings on direct appeal inadequate.
Townsend’s current petition for post-conviction relief makes five
substantive claims: (1) that the trial court improperly failed to rule on
a motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) that the indictment did not adequately
inform him of the charges against him or, alternatively, that the doctrine of
merger should apply to the murder and attempted murder charges; (3) that the
evidence of the attempted murder was not admissible in the trial on the murder
charge, claiming that this constitutes an improper amendment of the indictment
to include additional charges; (4) that the trial court’s failure to instruct
the jury that it must return verdicts on both the first- and second-degree
murder charges relieved the state of the burden of proving every element of its
case beyond a reasonable doubt; and (5) that the state failed to provide
Townsend with access to certain physical evidence for examination and testing.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held here that “all of Townsend’s
claims in his current petition for post-conviction relief are barred by the Knaffla
rule.” “[W]here direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised
therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a
subsequent petition for post-conviction relief.” “Similarly, a
post-conviction court will not consider claims that were raised or were known
and could have been raised in an earlier petition for post-conviction
relief. “
DATE OF DECISION: October 26, 2006
RECORD NUMBER: 2006-184
DESCRIPTION: [MURDER]
No comments:
Post a Comment