Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the summary denial of Mark Alan Stutelberg's petition for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence and recanted testimony. The court held that the petition, files, and records did not conclusively show that Stutelberg was entitled to no relief, particularly given the limited delay, lack of prejudice to the State, and absence of appellate review. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing without deciding the ultimate merits of the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly summarily denied Stutelberg's postconviction petition and request for an evidentiary hearing based on the length of his delay in seeking relief.
- Whether the alleged prejudice to the State from expiration of the perjury statute of limitations conclusively established that Stutelberg was entitled to no postconviction relief.
- Whether the absence of appellate review of Stutelberg's conviction required consideration of his petition rather than summary denial.
Holdings
- An evidentiary hearing was required because the petition, files, and records did not conclusively show that Stutelberg was entitled to no relief.
- Delay may justify denial of postconviction relief when it is deliberate and inexcusable or otherwise constitutes an abuse of the judicial process, but the delay in this case did not conclusively establish that Stutelberg was entitled to no relief.
- The expiration of the three-year perjury statute of limitations did not conclusively establish prejudice sufficient to summarily deny the postconviction petition.
- The absence of appellate review of a convicted defendant's claims is a critical factor against summary denial of a delayed postconviction petition, particularly where the petitioner has not previously received review of the conviction.
Key quotations
“"Although there may be extreme cases in which an excessive delay, without excuse, may alone justify denial of postconviction relief, * * * convicted defendants are generally entitled to at least one right of review."” (872)
“"We have never held that the three-year statute of limitations for perjury, Minn. Stat. § 628.26(k) (2006), is also the statute of limitations for postconviction relief based on recanted testimony, which would be the practical effect of adopting the district court's reasoning."” (874)
“"Consequently, the prejudice to the State allegedly caused by the expiration of the perjury statute of limitations does not conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief."” (874)
Factual background
Stutelberg was convicted of murdering his girlfriend, Holly Schwerzler, after evidence showed a history of domestic abuse, suspicious activity around the time of her disappearance, concealment of her body, and efforts to procure false testimony. Years later, former State witnesses Robert Edwards, Walter Poepping, and Diane Bauer provided affidavits asserting that their trial testimony or cooperation had been false, coerced, or improperly induced. Stutelberg filed a postconviction petition and sought an evidentiary hearing, claiming that the affidavits constituted newly discovered evidence and that his delay was attributable to efforts by his pro bono attorney and investigator.
Procedural history
Stutelberg was convicted in 1994 of two counts of first-degree murder and received consecutive life sentences. His direct appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief, without prejudice to seeking postconviction relief. In 2006, he filed a postconviction petition supported by newly obtained affidavits from former State witnesses and requested an evidentiary hearing. The district court summarily denied relief based on delay and alleged prejudice to the State. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Remand instructions
Hold an evidentiary hearing to consider Stutelberg's postconviction claims. The court did not direct the district court how to decide the petition's timeliness or merits.