This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).






Gregory J. Padden, petitioner,





State of Minnesota,



Filed July 22, 2003


Harten, Judge


Pine County District Court

File No. K5-97-1086


Gregory J. Padden, #192449, 1000 Lakeshore Drive, Moose Lake, MN 55767 (pro se appellant)


Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and


John K. Carlson, Pine County Attorney, 315 Main Street South, Pine City, MN 55063 (for respondent)


            Considered and decided by Minge, Presiding Judge, Harten, Judge, and Stoneburner, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N




The district court denied appellant’s petition for postconviction relief on the ground that all the arguments appellant raised had been previously raised on direct appeal and decided by this court.  Appellant, acting pro se, challenges the denial; respondent State of Minnesota takes no part in this appeal.  We affirm.



Appellant Gregory Padden pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter.  At the sentencing hearing, the district court denied his request to withdraw his plea.  State v. Padden, No. C1-98-1709 (Minn. App. 18 May 1999), review denied (Minn. 28 July 1999), reversed that denial on the ground that appellant’s plea was involuntary.  On remand, appellant again pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the guidelines presumptive sentence of 122 months.

Appellant then challenged his sentence.  State v. Padden, No. C7-00-727 (Minn. App. 19 December 2000), review denied (Minn. 13 March 2001), affirmed it, rejecting appellant’s arguments that he was entitled to a downward departure because (1) his victim was the aggressor; (2) he is of low mental capacity; (3) he was acting in self-defense; and (4) he was remorseful.  Using the same four arguments, appellant petitioned for postconviction relief.  He now challenges the denial of that petition.

 “The decisions of a postconviction court will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion.”  Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 251 (Minn. 2001) (citation omitted).

              Once a direct appeal has been taken, [appellate review of postconviction proceedings] will not consider matters that were raised on direct appeal or claims known at that time but not raised.


Sanders v. State, 628 N.W.2d 597, 600 (Minn. 2001) (citations omitted).       

During the hearing, the postconviction court asked appellant three times if he had any new information.  Appellant related some of the criminal activity of the victim, and the court asked what that had to do with appellant taking the victim’s life.  Appellant answered that it “will go to show * * * the violent tendency of [the victim].”  The court replied,

Which was argued and was argued not only in your sentencing but it was also argued on appeal, that issue, okay, and the Court has already—the upper court, the higher court has already ruled on that.


The postconviction court then asked appellant again for his new information and how it related to his case.  Appellant read a lengthy prepared statement that reiterated the alleged criminal activities of the victim and finished with an account of the incident during which appellant shot the victim.  When the postconviction court said that it had already heard that information, appellant repeated his arguments for a downward departure:

One, victim was the aggressor;

Two, the offender happened – the offense happened at my home;

Three, I was lacking a substantial capacity for judgment;

Four, self-defense.


When appellant had finished his presentation, the postconviction court said, 

I’ve heard what you’ve presented to me in writing.  I’ve heard your argument beyond that.  I’ve reviewed the files.  I’ve reviewed that which you had prepared for your motions.  * * *  I’ve heard you may have some nuances that were a little bit different from what I had heard in the original sentencing * * * but I don’t find any new information that wasn’t presented, either by yourself or your attorneys or your witnesses, that would grant you the relief you’re seeking so I have to deny that.


In his brief at 12, appellant asserts that the district court, this court, and the supreme court all failed to address the mitigating factors that warrant a downward departure.  But see State v. Padden, No. C7-00-727 (Minn. App. 19 December 2000), review denied (Minn. 13 March 2001) (rejecting appellant’s claims of mitigating factors).  The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief.