Evans v. State

1

Harry Jerome Evans, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. A23-0980

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 3, 2024

Ramsey County Office of Appellate Courts

Harry Jerome Evans, Bayport, Minnesota, pro se.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Alexandra Meyer, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.

Took no part, Hennesy, J.

SYLLABUS

The district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying an untimely petition for postconviction relief because the facts alleged in the petition failed to meet either the newly-discovered-evidence exception or the interests-of-justice exception to the statutory time bar.

Affirmed.

OPINION

PROCACCINI, Justice.

Harry Jerome Evans appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. In 2006, Evans was convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer engaged in the performance of official duties for shooting Saint Paul Police Sergeant Gerald Vick. See Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(4) (2012). We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. State v. Evans, 756 N.W.2d 854, 859 (Minn. 2008) (Evans I). Following his direct appeal, Evans sought review of his conviction and sentence multiple times in both state and federal courts. Although Evans concedes that his current petition falls outside the time limitation in Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4(a) (2022), he claims the facts alleged in his petition, if proven at an evidentiary hearing, would meet two of the statutory exceptions to the time bar-the newly-discovered-evidence and the interests-of-justice exceptions. Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(b)(2), (5) (2022). The district court determined that the petition failed to satisfy the exceptions and summarily denied the petition.

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the facts alleged in the petition failed meet an exception to the statutory time bar for postconviction relief, we affirm.

FACTS

In 2006, a jury found Harry Jerome Evans guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting of Saint Paul Police Sergeant Gerald Vick. Evans I, 756 N.W.2d at 859. The facts proved at trial and subsequent legal history are outlined in more detail in our previous opinions. See id. at 859-62; Evans v. State, 788 N.W.2d 38, 41-43 (Minn. 2010) (Evans II). To summarize: Sergeant Gerald Vick and Sergeant Joseph Strong were conducting an undercover investigation of prostitution at a Saint Paul bar the night of the shooting. Id. The two officers had been drinking at the bar to fit in with the other patrons. Id. As the bar closed, the two left the bar and began conversing near Strong's undercover car. Id. The officers had driven separately in unmarked cars to avoid suspicion. Id. While outside the bar they got into a confrontation with Evans and his cousin, A.K Id. at 860. The officers told Evans and A.K. to leave the area. Id. Before Evans and A.K. walked away, Evans raised his shirt, exposing his waistband to imply that he had a gun or could get a gun. Id.

Strong left in his car. Id. While Strong was stopped at a nearby traffic light, A.K. confronted him at the intersection, and Strong called Vick for backup. Id. Vick arrived at the scene, parking his car on the sidewalk by A.K. Id. Strong exited his vehicle, and he and Vick ran and stomped their feet toward A.K. and Evans to "push" them from the area. Id. During this renewed confrontation, Strong heard several gunshots and saw Vick fall to the ground. Id. Evans and A.K. fled from the scene before reuniting nearby. Id.

Given Evans's proximity to Vick before the gunshots, Strong identified Evans as the shooter. Id. at 859-60. At trial, A.K. also testified that Evans had shot Vick, with Evans telling A.K. afterward, "I got him, I think I got one." Id. at 161. A trial witness who was in another vehicle at the same intersection also identified Evans as the shooter. The police found .38-caliber bullets and shell casings at the crime scene and a .38-caliber revolver on a nearby property. Id. Police also found a cartridge of that same caliber in a pair of jeans at Evans's residence. Id. DNA testing on the revolver excluded A.K. and Vick but could not exclude Evans. Id. at 861-62. Evans claimed at trial that A.K. had shot Vick and that Vick could not have been engaged in the performance of official duties at the time of the shooting because he was intoxicated, allegedly in violation of Saint Paul Police Department policies. Id. at 862. The jury found Evans guilty of first-degree murder of a peace officer while the officer was engaged in official duties, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.185(a)(4), and the district court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release. Id.

Evans appealed his conviction to this court, challenging various aspects of his trial. We rejected Evans's arguments and affirmed his conviction. Evans I, 756 N.W.2d at 881. Following his direct appeal, Evans continued to seek review of his conviction and sentence in state and federal courts. Evans petitioned for postconviction relief for the first time in 2009. Evans II, 788 N.W.2d at 41. The district court denied his petition, and Evans appealed to this court. Id. Evans claimed that his trial and appellate counsel had provided ineffective assistance and that he was entitled to a new trial based on an allegation that, following his original trial, A.K. had admitted to a third party that A.K. was the actual shooter. Id. We rejected Evans's postconviction claims and affirmed the district court's decision to deny the petition. Id. at 50.

Evans next filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, alleging 11 grounds for relief, including several claims similar to those that he made in his appeals to our court in 2008 and 2010, as well as a claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Evans v. King, No. 10-4045, 2011 WL 3837086, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2011). After conducting the preliminary review required under federal court rules, the federal court rejected four grounds, dismissing them with prejudice and denying the petition as to those grounds. Id. at *2. Following adversarial proceedings, the district court rejected Evans's remaining seven grounds for relief, denied the petition, and dismissed it with prejudice in 2012. Evans v. King, No. 10-4045, 2012 WL 4128509, at *7 (D. Minn. Sept. 19, 2012). Evans then filed a motion for relief from judgment, seeking to reopen that habeas petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which the federal court denied in 2014. Evans v. King, No. 10-4045, 2014 WL 5325375, at *7 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2014).

Evans next returned to state courts to seek relief, filing a motion for relief from judgment under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, which the district court construed as a petition for postconviction relief. Evans v. State, 868 N.W.2d 227, 227 (Minn. 2015) (Evans III). In 2015, we affirmed the district court's denial of that petition. Id. at 230. We determined that the petition was time-barred under Rule 60.02 and Minnesota Statutes section 590.01 (2022), and Evans did not claim any exception to those time bars.

In 2015, Evans moved to correct the restitution portion of his sentence, the district court denied the motion, and we affirmed the district court's decision because the motion was untimely. Evans v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 362 (Minn. 2016) (Evans IV). In 2019, we affirmed the district court's denial of another motion by Evans to correct his sentence. Evans v. State, 925 N.W.2d 240, 244 (Minn. 2019) (Evans V).

In his current postconviction relief petition, Evans seeks an evidentiary hearing and a new trial. Evans asserts a variety of claims, alleging in his petition and accompanying affidavit that (1) the grand jury proceedings were flawed; (2) evidence was wrongly withheld at his trial; (3) impeachment evidence was wrongly suppressed at trial; (4) defective processing of evidence, as well as unreliable DNA evidence, compromised the trial process; (5) a problematic drinking culture at the Saint Paul Police Department denied him a fair trial; (6) a 2012-13 controversy at the Saint Paul Police Lab regarding forensic evidence calls into question the evidence presented against him at trial; (7) A.K. murdered Vick and admitted to doing so; (8) witnesses who testified against Evans lied at trial; and (9) the prosecution failed to establish two elements of the offense. Evans submitted 15 exhibits in support of his petition. One of his exhibits was the affidavit noted above, eight of the exhibits were from Evans's original trial, two contained the text of sections from Minnesota Statutes, and the other four consisted of post-trial correspondence and news articles.

The district court denied the petition without a hearing, determining that the facts alleged in the petition failed to meet an exception to the statutory time bar for postconviction relief.^[1] Evans appealed.

ANALYSIS

"We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief including the petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion." Campbell v State, 916 N.W.2d 502, 506 (Minn. 2018). In doing so, we review the district court's "legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error." Rhodes v. State, 875 N.W.2d 779, 786 (Minn. 2016). A postconviction petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing "[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief." Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2022). But a district court "need not hold an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him...