Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A16-0323
Hennepin County Chutich, J.
Derrick Trevor Griffin,
Appellant,
vs. Filed: August 3, 2016
Office of Appellate Courts
State of Minnesota,
Respondent.
______________________
Derrick Trevor Griffin, Rush City, Minnesota, pro se.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant
Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.
______________________
SYLLABUS
The postconviction court did not err by denying appellant’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel because the performance of appellant’s trial counsel was objectively
reasonable.
Affirmed.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
1
OPINION
CHUTICH, Justice.
In 2012, a Hennepin County jury found appellant Derrick Trevor Griffin guilty of
two first-degree murder offenses for the shooting death of one victim. See Minn. Stat.
§§ 609.185(a)(1) (premeditated murder), .185(a)(3) (drive-by shooting) (2014). The
district court sentenced Griffin to life imprisonment without the possibility of release on
the conviction of first-degree premeditated murder. See Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1);
Minn. Stat. § 609.106, subd. 2(1) (2014). On direct appeal, we affirmed. State v. Griffin
(Griffin I), 834 N.W.2d 688 (Minn. 2013).
On July 31, 2015, Griffin filed a timely petition for postconviction relief, claiming
that he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The postconviction
court summarily denied relief, that is, it denied relief without holding a hearing. Griffin
now appeals the postconviction court’s denial of relief. For the reasons stated below, we
affirm.
We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of
discretion. Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012). A postconviction court
abuses its discretion when it has “ ‘exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious
manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous
factual findings.’ ” Brown v. State, 863 N.W.2d 781, 786 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Reed v.
State, 793 N.W.2d 725, 729 (2010)). We review the postconviction court’s legal
conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Greer v. State, 836 N.W.2d
520, 522 (Minn. 2013). A petition for postconviction relief may be summarily denied if
2
the petition, the files, and the records of the proceeding conclusively show that the
petitioner is entitled to no relief. Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2014). In determining
whether to summarily deny a petition, the postconviction court presumes the facts alleged
in the petition to be true. Bobo v. State, 820 N.W.2d 511, 517 (Minn. 2012).
Griffin’s claims on appeal can be grouped into four categories. First, Griffin
alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the district court’s
admission of an out-of-court statement made by Griffin’s wife, K.G., who identified
Griffin near a bar shortly before the murder occurred.
Second, Griffin asserts violations of Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2014) and the Double
Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions,1 which protect
defendants from multiple prosecutions or multiple sentences for the same offense, see
State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 839 N.W.2d 515, 520 (Minn. 2013); State v. Schmidt, 612
N.W.2d 871, 876 (Minn. 2000). He further argues that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to raise those alleged violations.
1
The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota
Constitution provide that no person shall “be twice put in jeopardy” of punishment for the
same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7. Similarly, under section
609.035, subdivision 1, “if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense . . . the
person may be punished for only one of the offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any
one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them.” Section 609.035 “ ‘broaden[s]
the protection afforded by our constitutional provisions against double jeopardy.’ ” State
v. Schmidt, 612 N.W.2d 871, 876 (Minn. 2000) (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394,
400, 141 N.W.2d 517, 521 (1966)).
3
Third, Griffin contends that his two first-degree murder convictions, for the
murder of one victim, violate Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2014).2 See State v. Fort, 768
N.W.2d 335, 344 (Minn. 2009); State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720, 730 (Minn. 2000).
He further argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this alleged
violation.
Fourth, Griffin asserts that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise
an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim on direct appeal. But to establish that
appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of
trial counsel, “the appellant must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.” Fields v.
State, 733 N.W.2d 465, 468 (Minn. 2007); see Sullivan v. State, 585 N.W.2d 782, 784
(Minn. 1998) (“Sullivan’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is predicated
on the underlying claim against his trial counsel. If he cannot establish a claim of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel, his appellate counsel claim automatically fails.”).
Accordingly, if Griffin cannot establish that his trial counsel was ineffective, his claim
that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance
of trial counsel necessarily fails.
Griffin’s claim that his two first-degree murder convictions violate section 609.04
and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this alleged violation was not
2
Under section 609.04, a defendant “may be convicted of either the crime charged
or an included offense, but not both,” and a “conviction or acquittal of a crime is a bar to
further prosecution of any included offense, or other degree of the same crime.” This
statute “prevents multiple convictions based on the same conduct committed against the
same victim.” State v. Johnson, 616 N.W.2d 720, 730 (Minn. 2000).
4
raised in his petition for postconviction relief. Nor did the postconviction court consider
Griffin’s arguments regarding this claim. Consequently, these arguments are not
properly before us, and we decline to review them. Brocks v. State, 753 N.W.2d 672, 676
(Minn. 2008) (“Brocks did not raise this issue in his [postconviction] petition . . .
therefore, the postconviction court did not consider it. It is well settled that claims raised
for the first time on appeal ‘are forfeited for purposes of the appeal.’ ” (quoting
Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Minn. 2006))).
Given the above, our analysis of the ineffective-trial-counsel claims addresses
only Griffin’s claims that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
admission of K.G.’s out-of-court statement and (2) his convictions violate section
609.035 and the Double Jeopardy Clauses, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to raise those alleged violations.3 Before turning to the merits, however, we
address the State’s assertion that petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred by the rule
announced in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976).
Under the Knaffla rule, if a postconviction claim was raised, known, or should
have been known when a direct appeal was filed, that claim is procedurally barred and
will not be considered in a later petition for postconviction relief. Leake v. State, 737
N.W.2d 531, 535 (Minn. 2007) (citing Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252, 243 N.W.2d at 741).
An unraised claim is not Knaffla-barred, however, “if (1) the claim is novel or (2) the
3
We address Griffin’s claim of double punishment under section 609.035 and the
Double Jeopardy Clauses, even though it was not raised before the postconviction court.
See State v. White, 300 Minn. 99, 106, 219 N.W.2d 89, 93 (1974) (“[T]he prohibition
against double punishment cannot be waived . . . .” (citing Minn. Stat. § 609.035)).
5
interests of fairness and justice warrant relief.” Andersen v. State, 830 N.W.2d 1, 8
(Minn. 2013).
Whether these exceptions to Knaffla, including the interests-of-justice exception,
are still available after enactment of section 590.01, subdivision 1 (2014), is an open
question. As we have explained:
In 2005, the Legislature amended section 590.01, subdivision 1, to provide
that “[a] petition for postconviction relief after a direct appeal has been
completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on
direct appeal of the conviction or sentence.” . . . Based upon the 2005
amendments to the statute, it is unclear whether the Knaffla exceptions
remain applicable to petitions for postconviction relief. Because that issue
has not been raised by the State, we decline to reach it.
Andersen, 830 N.W.2d at 8 n.3 (citations omitted).
Even assuming that the interests-of-justice exception remains applicable to this
petition, however, a viable claim “must have substantive merit and must be asserted
without deliberate or inexcusable delay.” Id. at 8. Griffin contends, and the
postconviction court concluded, that the interests-of-justice exception applies to
overcome the Knaffla rule regarding Griffin’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
because Griffin’s appellate counsel (on his direct appeal in Griffin I) and trial counsel
were the same person.
In so ruling, the postconviction court relied on a decision by the court of appeals,
Jama v. State, 756 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. App. 2008). In Jama, the court of appeals stated:
[N]o Minnesota cases have squarely considered whether the Knaffla bar
applies when the same attorney represented the petitioner at trial and on
direct appeal. . . . [C]onsiderations of fairness are implicated. Counsel may
have an inherent conflict of interest because counsel cannot be expected to
allege his or her own incompetence as an aspect of appellate representation.
6
For this reason, a petitioner’s failure to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-
trial-counsel claim on direct appeal cannot be considered inexcusable.
Courts in other jurisdictions have reached this conclusion . . . . In sum, in
these settings . . . failure to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel is presumptively neither deliberate nor inexcusable and that, in
fairness, further review should not be barred.
Id. at 112 (citations omitted).
We have not yet addressed whether the Knaffla interests-of-justice exception
applies when trial counsel and appellate counsel are the same person. We need not
decide this question here, however, because even if we assume that the Knaffla interests-
of-justice exception applies and that Griffin satisfies it, his underlying ineffective-
assistance claims lack merit, as shown below.
Griffin argues that his trial counsel should have objected to the district court’s
admission of an out-of-court statement by his wife, K.G.4 Under Strickland, a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel is established if “ ‘counsel’s representation fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness’ ” and “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.’ ” Fields, 733 N.W.2d at 468 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687-88, 694 (1984)).
4
While K.G. was leaving a bar with friends, including the murder victim with
whom K.G. had an extramarital relationship, she saw a white Cadillac outside and said,
“Look at my husband over there, stalking me again.” Griffin I, 834 N.W.2d at 689-90.
Additional facts and analysis underlying this hearsay claim are not repeated here, as they
are provided in our decision on Griffin’s direct appeal. Id. at 690-95.
7
Because the application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law
and fact, our standard of review is de novo. State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823, 842
(Minn. 2003); see Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698. There is a “strong presumption” that
counsel’s performance was objectively reasonable. King v. State, 562 N.W.2d 791, 795
(Minn. 1997).
Applying these principles here, we conclude that the lack of an objection by
Griffin’s trial counsel was objectively reasonable. We held on Griffin’s direct appeal that
the district court’s admission of K.G.’s out-of-court statement was not an abuse of
discretion under the applicable evidentiary rule. Griffin I, 834 N.W.2d at 695 (“Given
that the [district] court applied the correct legal test and based on its overall analysis of
the relevant factors under [Minn. R. Evid.] 807, we hold that the [district] court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting the statement.”). An attorney’s failure to make an
objection that would have been properly denied is not objectively unreasonable under the
Strickland test. See State v. Rainer, 502 N.W.2d 784, 789 (Minn. 1993); State v. Tahash,
275 Minn. 242, 244-45, 146 N.W.2d 174, 176 (1966).
Similarly, Griffin’s claim that his convictions violate section 609.035 and the
Double Jeopardy Clauses lacks merit. Our careful review of the record shows that
section 609.035 and the Double Jeopardy Clauses are not applicable because Griffin was
subject to only one prosecution and received only one sentence. See Chavarria-Cruz,
839 N.W.2d at 520; Schmidt, 612 N.W.2d at 876-78. Therefore, Griffin is not entitled to
relief on this ground. And his contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to raise these alleged violations accordingly fails.
8
Finally, Griffin’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is predicated
on his underlying claims against his trial counsel. Because he cannot establish that his
trial counsel was ineffective, his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective necessarily
fails.
Affirmed.
9