Berkovitz v. State

826 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 2013) · Supreme Court of Minnesota · February 13, 2013

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Susan Rae Berkovitz’s second petition for postconviction relief. The court held that the petition was filed outside the two-year limitations period and that neither the newly discovered evidence exception nor the interests-of-justice exception applied.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Writing for the Court
Stras, Justice
Jurisdiction
Minnesota
Decision date
February 13, 2013
Procedural posture
Berkovitz appealed the denial of her second petition for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviewed whether the postconviction court abused its discretion in determining that the petition was untimely and did not satisfy any statutory exception to the two-year limitations period.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion
Parties
Susan Rae Berkovitz v. State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefsuccessive petitionsappellate procedurecriminal procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

post-conviction reliefcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Berkovitz's second petition for postconviction relief was filed within the two-year limitations period under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(2).
  2. Whether Berkovitz satisfied the statutory newly discovered evidence exception to the limitations period.
  3. Whether Berkovitz satisfied the statutory interests-of-justice exception to the limitations period.
  4. Whether the postconviction court abused its discretion by denying the untimely petition without granting relief.

Holdings

  1. Because Berkovitz did not file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court after the Minnesota Supreme Court decided her direct appeal, her conviction became final 90 days after the decision. Her limitations period therefore expired on February 1, 2008.
  2. The newly discovered evidence exception did not apply because none of Berkovitz's three claims alleged evidence that satisfied the statutory requirements, including evidence establishing her innocence by a clear and convincing standard.
  3. The interests-of-justice exception did not apply because all three claims in Berkovitz's petition were frivolous and therefore the petition did not satisfy the statutory exception.

Key quotations

No petition for postconviction relief may be filed more than two years after ... an appellate court’s disposition of petitioner’s direct appeal. (at 207)
a petition for postconviction relief is “frivolous” when “it is perfectly apparent, without argument, that the claims in the petition lack an objective, good-faith basis in law or fact.” (at 209)
a petition for postconviction relief is frivolous only if every claim in the petition lacks an objective, good-faith basis in law or fact. (at 209)
Allegations in a postconviction petition ‘must be more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ (at 210)

Factual background

Berkovitz shot and killed Shelley Joseph-Kordell and severely wounded Richard Hendrickson at the Hennepin County Government Center on September 29, 2008. The shootings arose from Berkovitz's long-running dispute with members of her family concerning her father's estate and her dissatisfaction with Joseph-Kordell and Hendrickson's roles in related proceedings. A jury convicted Berkovitz of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree murder, and she received consecutive sentences.

Procedural history

Berkovitz was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree murder, and the convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. She later filed a federal habeas petition, which was denied, and a first state postconviction petition, which was also denied. She filed the second state postconviction petition on February 15, 2012; the postconviction court denied it as untimely, and the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…