Allwine v. State

994 N.W.2d 528

Stephen Carl ALLWINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

A22-1378

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: July 19, 2023

Rehearing Denied September 11, 2023

Stephen Carl Allwine, Bayport, Minnesota, pro se.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Kevin Magnuson, Washington County Attorney, Nicholas A. Hydukovich, Assistant County Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

OPINION

McKEIG, Justice.

In 2018, appellant Stephen Carl Allwine was convicted of first-degree premediated murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2022), and sentenced to life in prison. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal as well as his denial for postconviction relief. State v. Allwine (Allwine I) , 963 N.W.2d 178 (Minn. 2021). In this appeal, Allwine challenges the district court's denial of his second petition for postconviction relief. Allwine presents several arguments, including numerous claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion to compel discovery and a motion for a hearing on juror misconduct, and that the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on his second postconviction petition. We affirm.

FACTS

In January 2018, a jury found appellant Stephen Carl Allwine guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, see Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1), for the death of his wife, Amy Allwine, in November 2016. A more detailed discussion of the facts surrounding Amy's death, as well as Allwine's arrest, trial, and conviction, can be found in Allwine I , 963 N.W.2d at 182–85. We recite only the facts pertinent to this appeal below.

In February 2016, a person using the online screen name "dogdayGod" sent a message to Besa Mafia, a forum that advertises contract killers, seeking to hire someone to kill Allwine's wife, Amy. DogdayGod sent the message over the "Dark Web," which is a part of the Internet that is only accessible through a specialized browser called The Onion Router, or "TOR." Evidence at trial showed that the TOR browser was installed on Allwine's computer. An investigator also testified that Allwine installed apps on his phone, which could be used to access the TOR browser.

After contacting Besa Mafia, dogdayGod sent a second message asking if it would be possible to kill Amy while she was on a business trip in Moline, Illinois. Five minutes before this message was sent, the user of a laptop with the username "S Allwine" searched for Moline, Illinois. DogdayGod later provided Besa Mafia with the route Amy would be taking, the address of Amy's hotel, a description of Amy and her vehicle, and a photograph of Amy. The day prior to this message, the user of a laptop with the username "S Allwine" accessed Amy's Facebook account and browsed her photographs.

To pay Besa Mafia for killing Amy, dogdayGod used an online digital currency known as "Bitcoin." DogdayGod sent a unique 34-character code to Besa Mafia on March 22, 2016. The State's expert, Mark Lanterman, later found that the "S Allwine" laptop contained the same unique 34-character alphanumeric code used for Bitcoin as the code that dogdayGod sent to Besa Mafia on March 22, 2016.

In May 2016, law enforcement notified Amy and Allwine that someone attempted to hire an assassin to kill her. They asked her for the names of any individuals who may wish to harm her. Amy provided a list of names, but there was no evidence of the dogdayGod account on the devices of any of the individuals Amy listed.

On November 13, 2016, Allwine was working from his basement office at home. At noon, he went upstairs to have lunch with Amy and their son. Shortly after noon, Amy told Allwine that she was feeling dizzy, lightheaded, had a dry mouth, and went to lie down in her bed. Allwine went back downstairs to continue working, but records showed that his last employment action was at 12:51 p.m. that day. Around 1:00 p.m., Amy's father arrived at the Allwine residence to finish a home project for the family. Allwine told Amy's father that she was in the bedroom and not feeling well. Amy's father left the Allwine residence around 2:00 p.m., but Allwine called him minutes later and asked him to take their son so Allwine could take Amy to a clinic. Allwine told Amy's father that he would pick up their son that evening around 5:30 p.m. Amy's father returned to the Allwine residence, picked up his grandson, and left, leaving Allwine and Amy alone in the home.

Three hours later, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Allwine called Amy's father to notify him that he was running late because he needed to stop at a gas station. Allwine arrived at 5:30 p.m. and told Amy's father that Amy decided not to go to the clinic. Allwine and his son stopped for dinner and then arrived home around 6:52 p.m. Upon arrival, the son entered the home and discovered Amy's body. Allwine called 911 at approximately 7:00 p.m. and told the emergency dispatcher: "I think my wife shot herself. There's blood all over."

Cottage Grove police officers responded to Allwine's 911 call. Officers noticed that the evidence at the scene seemed inconsistent with a suicide. ¹ Shortly after, investigators and scientists from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension ("BCA") arrived at the Allwine residence to analyze the crime scene. After their analysis, BCA forensics experts and the medical examiner concluded that Amy's position on the floor and blood patterns on her face were inconsistent with a suicide. Gunshot residue was also found on Allwine's hand.

On November 14, 2016, a medical examination was performed on Amy's body. The medical examiner discovered a nontherapeutic amount of scopolamine in Amy's system. ² Based on the level of scopolamine in Amy's system, the medical examiner agreed that Amy died at 3:15 p.m. or earlier that day. The medical examiner also agreed that the evidence was inconsistent with suicide; rather, the evidence was consistent with homicide.

Following an investigation, Allwine was indicted by a grand jury on the charge of first-degree premeditated murder. The case proceeded to trial, and on January 31, 2018, the jury found Allwine guilty. On February 2, 2018, Allwine was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

Allwine subsequently filed a direct appeal, then filed a motion to stay his direct appeal to bring a petition for postconviction relief. We granted that motion. State v. Allwine , A18-0846, Order at 1–2 (Minn. filed Apr. 2, 2019). Before the district court, Allwine filed a petition for postconviction relief and moved for funds for a digital forensics expert. The district court denied Allwine's motion for funds because he did not establish indigency. The district court also denied Allwine's postconviction petition.

We thereafter affirmed both Allwine's conviction and the denial of postconviction relief. Allwine I , 963 N.W.2d at 182. Following this denial, Allwine filed another postconviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; raising a claim of jury misconduct; and requesting an evidentiary hearing on claims alleged in the petition. Allwine also filed a motion to compel discovery. The postconviction court summarily denied the postconviction petition and denied the motion to compel discovery. Allwine now appeals.

ANALYSIS

We review a summary denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion. Griffin v. State , 961 N.W.2d 773, 776 (Minn. 2021). An abuse of discretion is "based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Eason v. State , 950 N.W.2d 258, 264 (Minn. 2020). In reviewing the summary denial, we view the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the petitioner. Griffin, 961 N.W.2d at 776. "[A] hearing is not required when the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to grant the requested relief." Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Allwine raises several arguments that he claims entitle him to relief. First, he argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective on multiple grounds. Second, he claims that the postconviction court abused its discretion in denying his motion to compel discovery. Third, he contends the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a Schwartz hearing to investigate alleged juror misconduct. ³ Finally, he argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition. We consider each of these arguments in turn.

I.

We first address whether Allwine's appellate counsel was ineffective. An evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is only required when a petitioner alleges facts that "affirmatively show that his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that but for the errors, the result would have been different." Leake v. State , 737 N.W.2d 531, 536 (Minn. 2007) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under Strickland , a party is required to show that (1) counsel's performance fell below an "objective standard of reasonableness," and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel's errors. 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. An attorney's performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness when they fail to exercise the skills and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney under the circumstances. State v. Doppler , 590 N.W.2d 627, 633 (Minn. 1999). Appellate counsel does not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness by not raising a...