Bobo v. State

820 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 2012) · Supreme Court of Minnesota · August 22, 2012

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the summary denial of Bobo’s second and third petitions for postconviction relief. The court affirmed denial of the ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim, holding that counsel was not objectively unreasonable for failing to raise a Miranda-based claim concerning routine identification information. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence claim because affidavits describing an alleged alternate perpetrator’s confession were not conclusively cumulative or inadmissible, and witness credibility could not be resolved summarily.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Writing for the Court
Gildea, Chief Justice; Dietzen; Gildea; Stras
Jurisdiction
Minnesota
Decision date
August 22, 2012
Procedural posture
Bobo appealed the summary denial of his second and third petitions for postconviction relief. The second petition alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the third alleged newly discovered evidence.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the postconviction court's legal determinations de novo. Whether an evidentiary hearing is required depends on whether the petition and the files and records conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Minnesota
Parties
De-Aunteze Lavion Bobo v. State of Minnesota
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

state post-conviction reliefsuccessive petitionsineffective assistanceevidenceappellate procedure

Practice areas

Minnesota postconviction reliefcriminal procedureappellate procedurecriminal evidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Bobo was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim concerning the absence of a Miranda challenge to testimony about Bobo's cell phone number.
  2. Whether Bobo was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his third postconviction petition based on newly discovered evidence consisting of alleged confessions by James to fellow inmates.
  3. Whether the alleged confessions were cumulative or merely impeachment evidence and therefore legally insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing under the newly discovered evidence standard.

Holdings

  1. The postconviction court properly summarily denied Bobo's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim because the alleged failure to challenge testimony concerning Bobo's cell phone number did not satisfy the deficient-performance prong of Strickland. Routine identification and biographical questions, including a telephone number, do not require Miranda warnings.
  2. The postconviction court erred by summarily denying Bobo's third petition without an evidentiary hearing because the record did not conclusively establish that Bobo was entitled to no relief under the newly discovered evidence test. The alleged evidence that James confessed to being the shooter was not cumulative, and the possibility that James could confirm the confession at a hearing meant that the hearsay allegations could not be rejected conclusively without a hearing.

Key quotations

Unless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the court shall promptly set an early hearing on the petition (at 516)
Under the Rainer test, a defendant is entitled to a new trial only if he proves the following. (at 518)
The identification of a specific alternative perpetrator is not cumulative of Bobo’s general claim of innocence or James’s recantation at trial. (at 519)

Factual background

Bobo was convicted for his alleged role in a drive-by shooting that killed James Roberts and injured R.N. The State's case included evidence that Bobo's cell phone connected to a cell tower near the crime scene shortly before the shooting and testimony from Samuel James implicating Bobo, although James recanted at trial and claimed he had falsely implicated Bobo for police benefits. In his third postconviction petition, Bobo submitted affidavits stating that James later confessed to fellow inmates J.C. and D.T. that he, rather than Bobo, committed the shooting with Slaughter.

Procedural history

Bobo was convicted of first-degree murder while committing a drive-by shooting and drive-by shooting, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. He later filed a second postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and a newly discovered evidence claim, followed by a third petition alleging newly discovered evidence consisting of fellow inmates' accounts of James's alleged confessions. The postconviction court summarily denied both petitions without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the second petition, reversed the denial of the third petition, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Remand instructions

The postconviction court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence claim asserted in Bobo's third postconviction petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…