Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Gary Roby’s third petition for postconviction relief arising from his convictions for aiding and abetting murder. The court held that claims based on a 1989 police report and a 2002 letter were untimely, while claims based on three later affidavits did not satisfy the newly discovered evidence or interests-of-justice exceptions. The court also declined to grant relief under equitable tolling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether claims based on the 1989 police report and 2002 letter were untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c).
- Whether claims based on the affidavits of V.C., T.B., and C.H. satisfied the newly discovered evidence exception in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2).
- Whether Roby's claims qualified for the interests-of-justice exception in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5).
- Whether Roby was entitled to equitable tolling of the postconviction limitations period.
- Whether the postconviction court properly denied an evidentiary hearing.
Holdings
- Claims based on evidence that Roby knew about more than two years before filing his petition were untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c). Roby learned of the police report in 2004 and received the Dunn-Simmons letter by approximately November 3, 2003, but did not file his petition until March 27, 2009.
- The V.C., T.B., and C.H. affidavits did not satisfy Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2), because the evidence was cumulative, impeaching, inadmissible, or otherwise incapable of establishing Roby's actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.
- Roby's claims did not qualify for the interests-of-justice exception in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(5), and therefore remained time-barred.
- Even assuming equitable tolling could apply to Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4, Roby was not entitled to tolling because he failed to establish both an extraordinary circumstance and diligent pursuit of his rights.
Key quotations
“In sum, we hold that all of Roby’s claims are time-barred under the postconviction statute.” (at 30)
“Because Roby did not file his petition until well over a year later, he cannot be said to have been diligently pursuing his rights.” (at 31)
Factual background
Marlizza McIntyre was shot in the back of the head during a robbery in a Saint Paul apartment on May 22, 1989. Trial evidence included conflicting eyewitness accounts, Roby's statements to police admitting involvement and placing his hand on the gun, possession of McIntyre's distinctive necklace, and statements to a witness threatening retaliation. Roby's third postconviction petition relied on a 1989 police report, a 2002 letter, and affidavits from 2003, 2007, and 2008, which he characterized as newly discovered or recanted evidence.
Procedural history
Roby was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree murder while committing aggravated robbery, and second-degree intentional murder. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal and later affirmed the denials of his first two postconviction petitions. After the postconviction court initially dismissed his third petition as untimely, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of the statutory timing and exception provisions. On remand, the postconviction court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and the Supreme Court affirmed.