Clifton v. State

830 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 2013) · Supreme Court of Minnesota · May 15, 2013

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the denial of Brian Alexander Clifton’s petition for postconviction relief following his first-degree premeditated murder conviction. The court held that the petition was untimely and that the affidavits concerning a witness’s recantation and an alternative perpetrator did not satisfy the newly discovered evidence exception to the statutory time bar, affirming the postconviction court.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Writing for the Court
Gildea, Chief Justice
Jurisdiction
Minnesota
Decision date
May 15, 2013
Procedural posture
Clifton appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, which sought a new trial or an evidentiary hearing based on alleged recanted testimony and newly discovered evidence.
Standard of review
Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Factual findings are reviewed for sufficient evidentiary support and are given great deference; they will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential decision of the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Parties
Brian Alexander Clifton v. State of Minnesota
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefpost-conviction reliefactual innocenceevidencecriminal procedure

Practice areas

Minnesota postconviction reliefcriminal procedurenewly discovered evidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Clifton's 2011 postconviction petition was barred by the two-year limitations period in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a).
  2. Whether Walker's recantation, his assertion of an alternative perpetrator, his explanation for the alleged false testimony, and his mother's affidavit satisfied the newly discovered evidence exception in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2).
  3. Whether the postconviction court properly denied an evidentiary hearing and a new trial.

Holdings

  1. Clifton's petition was untimely because it was filed more than two years after the Minnesota Supreme Court's disposition of his direct appeal.
  2. The affidavits did not satisfy the newly discovered evidence exception because the asserted evidence was cumulative of evidence presented at trial, was primarily impeachment evidence, and did not establish Clifton's innocence by clear and convincing evidence.
  3. The postconviction court properly denied Clifton's petition and his request for an evidentiary hearing because the petition was time barred and did not establish entitlement to the newly discovered evidence exception.

Key quotations

Walker’s recantation and his allegation of an alternative perpetrator are not newly discovered evidence because this evidence was presented to the jury at trial. (at 438)
Because Clifton does not satisfy the newly discovered evidence exception, Clifton’s postconviction petition is time barred under Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a). (at 439)

Factual background

Clifton was convicted of shooting Steven Nix in the head at close range after previously threatening to kill him. At trial, eyewitnesses Walker, D.N., and C.C. identified Clifton as the shooter, although Walker had initially recanted and then reaffirmed his identification during the first trial and at the retrial. Years later, Walker and his mother submitted affidavits asserting that Walker had falsely identified Clifton because of fear and threats and suggesting that another person committed the shooting. The record nevertheless contained two additional eyewitness identifications and evidence of Clifton's prior threats toward Nix.

Procedural history

Clifton was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder in 2003, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. In 2011, he filed a postconviction petition relying primarily on affidavits from eyewitness Walker and Walker's mother. The postconviction court denied relief, concluding that the petition was untimely under the two-year limitations period and that the asserted evidence did not qualify for the newly discovered evidence exception. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…