Caldwell v. State

976 N.W.2d 131

Lincoln Lamar CALDWELL, Appellant,

v.STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.

A21-1292

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: June 22, 2022

Zachary A. Longsdorf, Longsdorf Law Firm PLC, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, for appellant.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Sarah J. Vokes, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

OPINION

HUDSON, Justice.

In 2008, Lincoln Caldwell was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree murder. We affirmed the conviction and upheld the district court's denial of the two postconviction petitions filed by Caldwell while his direct appeal was pending. State v. Caldwell , 803 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2011) ( Caldwell I ).

In 2012, Caldwell filed a third postconviction petition alleging that three of the State's witnesses provided false testimony during the jury trial. The district court initially summarily denied the petition, but we reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Caldwell v. State , 853 N.W.2d 766, 778 (Minn. 2014) ( Caldwell II ). On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and subsequently denied the petition. On appeal, we affirmed. Caldwell v. State , 886 N.W.2d 491 (Minn. 2016) ( Caldwell III ), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2138, 198 L.Ed.2d 214 (2017).

In 2020, Caldwell filed his fourth postconviction petition alleging a claim of newly discovered evidence. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the petition, finding that none of the evidence presented by Caldwell qualified under the newly discovered evidence exception in Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4 (2020). Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

FACTS

A jury found Caldwell guilty of six counts of aiding and abetting first-degree murder in connection with the June 17, 2006 drive-by shooting death of Brian Cole at the Juneteenth festival in North Minneapolis. The facts are set forth in greater detail in this court's opinion in Caldwell I , 803 N.W.2d at 377–381.

At trial, the State presented evidence suggesting that Caldwell was the driver of the vehicle with at least two passengers, Cey Barber and Kirk Harrison,¹ and multiple gunshots were fired at the victim as the vehicle drove by. The district court convicted Caldwell of first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release. Caldwell filed a direct appeal and then requested a stay of the appeal to pursue postconviction relief.

This appeal involves Caldwell's fourth petition for postconviction relief. But because his earlier petitions are relevant to our analysis, we begin with a summary of those proceedings. Caldwell filed two postconviction petitions that were consolidated with his direct appeal: an initial petition in June 2009, along with a pro se supplemental brief, and a second petition in March 2010. Caldwell's second petition alleged newly discovered evidence that the other passengers in the vehicle, Barber and Kirk Harrison, told a private investigator that Caldwell knew nothing about the gun inside the vehicle or a plan to shoot the victim. The district court found that Caldwell's newly discovered claim was not valid because he knew of the evidence before and during the trial.

We lifted the stay of Caldwell's direct appeal and consolidated it with the orders denying his two petitions for postconviction relief. On direct appeal, Caldwell argued: (1) that Minnesota Statutes section 609.05, subdivision 4 (2020), barred his conviction as an accomplice where the principal party who fired the shots that killed the victim was acquitted; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel; (3) the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kirk Harrison had the requisite intent to commit first-degree murder, and therefore there was insufficient evidence to support Caldwell's conviction; (4) the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the "LL's" met the statutory definition of a gang; and (5) he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the newly discovered evidence claim.² Caldwell I , 803 N.W.2d at 381–89.

We affirmed Caldwell's conviction and the district court's denials of his two postconviction relief petitions. Caldwell I , 803 N.W.2d at 377. We interpreted section 609.05, subdivision 4, and determined that the statute does not bar Caldwell's conviction even though the principal party who allegedly fired the gunshots from the vehicle (Kirk Harrison) was acquitted of first-degree murder. Id. at 382–83. We further determined that the evidence is sufficient to support Caldwell's conviction for aiding and abetting first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang. Id. at 386. Finally, we upheld the district court's denial of Caldwell's requests for postconviction relief. Id. at 389–91. Regarding the newly discovered evidence claim in his second petition, we found that the information provided by Kirk Harrison and Barber, two of the passengers in the vehicle Caldwell was driving, was known to Caldwell at the time of the jury trial. Id. at 389.

Caldwell filed a third postconviction petition for relief and alleged that three of the State's witnesses—William Keith Brooks, Carnell Harrison,³ and Shawntis Turnage—provided false material testimony at trial. The district court summarily denied the petition, but we reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the witness recantation statements were sufficiently trustworthy to justify a hearing. Caldwell II , 853 N.W.2d at 776. On remand, the district court determined that it would not admit the recantation statements in evidence unless the witnesses testified. During the evidentiary hearing, the district court heard testimony from two of the passengers in the vehicle at the time of the shooting (Carnell Harrison and Barber) as well as Caldwell's friend who testified during the jury trial (Turnage). After the evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the petition, finding that Turnage's testimony was properly stricken based on his invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and that Caldwell failed to satisfy the burden of proof warranting a new trial based on witness recantation. We affirmed. Caldwell III , 886 N.W.2d at 494.

In 2020, Caldwell filed his fourth petition for postconviction relief, the subject of the current appeal. Caldwell asserted another claim of newly discovered evidence based on three affidavits: a 2019 affidavit of Kirk Harrison, a 2020 affidavit of Samantha Taylor, and a 2020 affidavit of Christopher Bahtuoh. In his affidavit, Kirk Harrison stated that the gun used to shoot the victim belonged to him, that he made the unilateral decision to fire the shots, and that Caldwell had nothing to do with the shooting. Kirk Harrison also stated in his affidavit that he reached out to Caldwell and offered to testify to these facts at Caldwell's trial but was not called to testify. In her affidavit, Taylor stated that she witnessed an argument between Caldwell and Kirk Harrison following the shooting and believed the argument was related to Caldwell being angry with Harrison for firing gunshots out of Caldwell's vehicle. And Christopher Bahtuoh stated in his affidavit that he was standing in the area of the shooting and gunshots were fired from the crowd before shots were fired from Caldwell's vehicle.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing, but only allowed Bahtuoh to testify.⁴ Bahtuoh testified that gunshots came from behind him before gunfire came from the vehicle driven by Caldwell. Bahtuoh testified that he did not know who was firing any of the guns involved, either at Caldwell's vehicle or from Caldwell's vehicle, but he observed that the person shooting from inside Caldwell's vehicle was sitting in the front passenger seat. Bahtuoh explained that he had a conversation with Caldwell about providing this information while they were in the same prison unit together in July 2018.⁵

The district court denied Caldwell's fourth petition for postconviction relief because none of the evidence presented by Caldwell qualified under the newly discovered evidence exception. Regarding the 2019 Harrison affidavit, the district court noted that "Caldwell presented nearly identical information from Harrison in his ... postconviction petition filed eleven years ago in March 2010," and that Caldwell was aware of Harrison's testimony at the time of the jury trial in 2008. Regarding the 2020 Taylor affidavit, the district court found that Caldwell could have investigated and presented Taylor's testimony at the time of the jury trial. Finally, the district court found that Bahtuoh's testimony was not credible, that it was cumulative of testimony provided by Barber, and that it did not establish Caldwell's innocence. Accordingly, the district court denied the petition.

Caldwell now appeals.

ANALYSIS

We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion. Campbell v. State , 916 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2018). We will not reverse unless the district court erred in applying the law, made clearly erroneous factual findings, or abused its discretion. Rossberg v. State , 932 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Minn. 2019). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo to determine whether it abused its discretion. Eason v. State , 950 N.W.2d 258, 263–64 (Minn. 2020).

Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4, requires that, absent a listed exception, a petition for postconviction relief must be filed within 2 years after "the later of: (1) the entry of judgment of conviction or sentence if no direct appeal is filed; or (2) an appellate court's disposition of petitioner's direct appeal." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4. It is undisputed that Caldwell filed this fourth postconviction petition more than 2 years after his conviction became final.⁶ Accordingly,...