This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Christopher R. Krych, petitioner,
State of Minnesota,
Filed March 5, 2002
Dakota County District Court
File No. KX972291
Christopher R. Krych, #123074, MCF – Stillwater, 970 Pickett Street North, Bayport, MN 55003 (pro se appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Avenue, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and
James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Nicole L. Fredricks, Special Staff Assistant County Attorney, Dakota County Judicial Center, 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Huspeni, Judge.*
Pro se appellant Christopher Krych challenges the district court’s denial of his postconviction petition seeking resentencing. Because all issues were either raised or known at the time of the direct appeal, we affirm the district court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief.
This court reviews a postconviction proceeding only to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the postconviction court’s findings. Jihad v. State, 594 N.W.2d 522, 524 (Minn. 1999). We will not disturb a postconviction court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id. A postconviction court may dismiss a petition for relief without an evidentiary hearing if the petition, files, and records “conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief * * *.” Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2000).
In this appeal, Krych primarily raises issues of his ineffective assistance or lack of counsel at sentencing, the court’s denial of his motion for continuance, and the court’s failure to provide him with a copy of his presentence investigation report. All issues raised by Krych were known to him at the time of his direct appeal. See State v. Krych, No. C9-98-1036, 1999 WL 242516 (Minn. App. June 29, 1999). Krych’s brief includes an admission that he argued ineffective assistance of counsel in his supplemental pro se brief on direct appeal. Once a direct appeal has been taken, all matters raised in the appeal or claims that were known but not raised, will not be considered in a subsequent petition for postconviction relief. Scales v. State, 620 N.W.2d 706, 707-08 (Minn. 2001). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Krych’s postconviction petition.
Finally, we decline to address the issue of judicial bias because the matter was not properly raised before the district court. Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996).
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.