Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Harry Jerome Evans’s claims for relief from judgment were untimely. The court affirmed the denial of his motion, concluding that the claims were untimely under both Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 and the postconviction statute.

Holdings

1. The court did not need to decide whether the district court correctly characterized Evans's motion because all of his claims were untimely under both Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 and the postconviction statute.
2. Evans's motion was untimely under Rule 60.02 because the more than five-year delay after affirmance of his conviction and nearly four-year delay after affirmance of his first postconviction petition was not reasonable.
3. Evans's claims were untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01 because they were filed more than two years after the appellate disposition of his direct appeal and did not fall within a statutory exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred by construing Evans's Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion as a second postconviction petition.
2. Whether Evans's claims were timely under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02.
3. Whether Evans's claims were timely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01.

Disposition

affirmed