Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A08-1664 Ramsey County Otha Eric Townsend, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Otha Eric Townsend, pro se, Bayport, Minnesota, for appellant. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ Filed: June 18, 2009 Office of Appellate Courts Magnuson, C.J.

SYLLABUS The 2005 amendment to the Postconviction Relief Act is not unconstitutional under the Single Subject and Title Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. Affirmed. OPINION MAGNUSON, Chief Justice. Appellant, Otha Eric Townsend, seeks review of the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. He argues: (1) the 2005 amendment to the Postconviction Relief 1

Act is unconstitutional under the Single Subject and Title Clause of the Minnesota Constitution; (2) that in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976), we erred in adopting an extra-statutory procedural bar; and (3) that the district court erred in admitting evidence of another crime. We affirm. Townsend was convicted of first-degree murder for the killing of Candis KochWilson. Townsend filed a direct appeal and argued that evidence of an assault committed on the same night as the killing was erroneously admitted. State v. Townsend, 546 N.W.2d 292, 296 (Minn. 1996). We concluded that while some of the evidence was admitted erroneously, any error was harmless and affirmed his conviction. Id. at 296-97. We have previously reviewed three appeals by Townsend from denials of requests for postconviction relief. About two years after his direct appeal, Townsend filed his first petition for postconviction relief, alleging various errors in addition to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Townsend v. State, 582 N.W.2d 225, 228 (Minn. 1998). We concluded that all of Townsend's claims were barred by Knaffla and affirmed his conviction. Id. Approximately 4 years later, Townsend filed his second petition for postconviction relief, arguing that on direct appeal we had incorrectly applied the harmless error test. Townsend v. State, 646 N.W.2d 218, 219 (Minn. 2002). We Four

analyzed Townsend's claim substantively and again affirmed his conviction. Id.

years later, we affirmed the denial of Townsend's third postconviction petition because all of his claims were barred by Knaffla. Townsend v. State, 723 N.W.2d 14, 18-20 (Minn. 2006).

2

In this postconviction appeal, Townsend argues that the 2005 amendment to Minn. Stat.

Download A08-1664, Otha Eric Townsend, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent..pdf

Minnesota Law