Kingbird v. State

1

Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

No. A22-1642

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

July 24, 2023

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Gaitas, Judge Beltrami County District Court File No 04-CR-14-3347

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

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and David L. Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, David P. Frank, Assistant County Attorney, Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Gaitas, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larson, Judge.

OPINION

GAITAS, JUDGE

Appellant Lance Arnold Kingbird appeals the district court's denial of his postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the district court's determination that most of Kingbird's postconviction claims were barred by law. But because the district court abused its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing as to Kingbird's claim of newly discovered evidence, which was based on the complainant's partial recantation of her trial testimony, we reverse in part and remand for a postconviction evidentiary hearing on that claim.

FACTS

In 2014, respondent State of Minnesota charged Kingbird with three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct after his 11-year-old daughter A.L. reported that Kingbird had sexually assaulted her. Following a trial, a jury found Kingbird guilty of all counts. The district court imposed three concurrent prison sentences of 156 months, 234 months, and 360 months.

Kingbird filed a direct appeal in this court, which we then stayed to allow him to pursue postconviction relief in district court. In a postconviction petition, he alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call witnesses, impeach witnesses, and present exculpatory evidence. The district court denied Kingbird's petition. Kingbird reinstated his direct appeal, arguing that the district court erred by admitting A.L.'s out-of-court video-recorded statement at trial and by denying his postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirmed. See State v. Kingbird, No. A15-2001, 2018 WL 1997342, at *6 (Minn.App. Apr. 30, 2018) (Kingbird I), rev. denied (Minn. July 17, 2018).

Following the direct appeal, Kingbird again challenged his convictions by filing a second postconviction petition. Kingbird's second postconviction petition alleged that a new witness would testify that A.L.'s mother had a motive to falsely accuse Kingbird.

Additionally, the petition asserted claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, constitutional violations arising from the state's failure to disclose evidence and improper searches and seizures, jury bias, and sentencing error. The district court summarily denied Kingbird's second postconviction petition, and we affirmed. See Kingbird v. State, No. A21-0199, 2021 WL 5872864, at *5 (Minn.App. Dec. 13, 2021) (KingbirdII), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 2022).

In August 2022, Kingbird filed a third postconviction petition. The primary focus of Kingbird's third postconviction petition was A.L.'s recent recantation of some of her trial testimony. A.L., who is now an adult, spoke with an investigator in May 2022 and stated that some of the conduct underlying Kingbird's convictions never happened. She also signed an affidavit wherein she partially recanted her trial testimony. Kingbird's postconviction petition alleged that A.L.'s statements constituted newly discovered evidence of his innocence, which required an evidentiary hearing. In addition to this claim, Kingbird revived several of the claims he made in his second postconviction petition. The district court denied Kingbird's third postconviction petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Kingbird appeals the district court's summary denial of his third postconviction petition.

DECISION

Appellate courts "review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion. 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." Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017) (quotations and citation omitted). The appellate court reviews de novo the postconviction court's resolution of legal questions. Martin v. State, 825 N.W.2d 734, 740 (Minn. 2013).

Kingbird's postconviction petition raised two categories of claims. First, he alleged that various legal errors required a new trial, or alternatively, resentencing. Second, he alleged that A.L.'s statements recanting some of her trial testimony constituted newly discovered evidence that warranted a postconviction evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he challenges the district court's summary rejection of both categories of claims.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying postconviction relief as to the first category of errors. But we agree with Kingbird that he is entitled to a postconviction evidentiary hearing regarding A.L.'s alleged recantation. We address each category of claims in turn.

I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying Kingbird's postconviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional discovery violations, denial of the right to confront witnesses, and unlawful sentencing.

If a "direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief." State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976). This "Knaffla bar" also applies to postconviction claims "that should have been known on direct appeal." Reed v. State, 793 N.W.2d 725, 729-30 (Minn. 2010); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(2) (2022) ("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."). There are two exceptions to the Knaffla bar: "(1) if the claim presents a novel legal issue or (2) if fairness requires review of the claim and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal." Quick v. State, 692 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Minn. 2005). Appellate courts review the denial of a postconviction petition based on the Knaffla bar for an abuse of discretion. Reed, 793 N.W.2d at 729.

The district court determined that Kingbird's postconviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional discovery violations, denial of the right to confront witnesses, and unlawful sentencing were Knaffla-barred. We agree. Kingbird either raised these claims on direct appeal or in his prior postconviction petitions, or he had the opportunity to do so and did not. See Kingbird 1, 2018 WL 1997342, at *4-6 (reviewing Kingbird's postconviction claim for ineffective assistance of counsel); KingbirdII, 2021 WL 5872864, at *2-5 (reviewing Kingbird's postconviction claims for (1) an improper sentence, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) constitutional discovery violations). Moreover, Kingbird does not contend that an exception to the Knaffla bar applies. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined these claims were Knaffla -barred.

II. The district court abused its discretion by summarily denying Kingbird's newly-discovered-evidence claim because Kingbird's petition alleged facts that satisfy the newly-discovered-evidence exception to the postconviction statute and warranted an evidentiary hearing.

We next turn to Kingbird's second claim of error-that A.L.'s alleged recantation is newly discovered evidence that requires an evidentiary hearing. Because this issue is fact intensive, we first consider the two sources of facts in the case, the trial evidence and the new evidence that Kingbird submitted to the district court with his postconviction petition. We then address the applicable law. Applying the law to the facts, we conclude that Kingbird is entitled to a postconviction evidentiary hearing, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion by denying postconviction relief without ordering a hearing.

A. Factual Background

1. The Trial Evidence

A.L.'s trial testimony was the foundation of the state's case against Kingbird.^[1] She testified that Kingbird had "molested" her on three different occasions. According to A.L., the first incident-which we refer to here as the "car incident"-occurred near Kingbird's car. A.L. testified that she was with her brother in Kingbird's car. Kingbird instructed her brother to get out and ride his bike while Kingbird gave A.L. driving lessons. A.L. testified that Kingbird then penetrated her vagina with his penis. The second incident that A.L testified about-the "mattress incident"-occurred on a mattress located on the floor of the family's living room. A.L. testified that while her mother, C.L., was sleeping on the same mattress, Kingbird penetrated A.L.'s vagina with his penis. According to A.L., the third incident-the "couch incident"-occurred when she and Kingbird were on the couch in the living room. A.L. testified that she tried to push Kingbird away when he initiated a sexual encounter. But A.L. testified that her resistance failed, and Kingbird penetrated her vagina with his penis while she was on the couch. A.L. recalled that she saw semen during at least one of these incidents. Soon after the couch incident, A.L. reported the incidents to C.L., who contacted police. During A.L.'s testimony, the prosecutor asked...