This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Ron Orville Wilson, petitioner,
State of Minnesota,
Filed October 19, 2004
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 90053197
Ron Orville Wilson, #115974, 970 Pickett Street North, Bayport, MN 55003-1490 (pro se appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.*
Ron Orville Wilson appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Because the issues now raised by appellant were known at the time of his direct appeal nearly 13 years ago, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s petition. We therefore affirm.
D E C I S I O N
We review the postconviction court’s decision denying relief for abuse of discretion. Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 251 (Minn. 2001). We will not reverse the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous and without evidentiary support in the record. Id.
The district court found that appellant failed to establish a factual basis for postconviction relief. In his petition and appellate brief, appellant attacked the credentials of the trial judge, prosecutor, and public defender, and challenged the validity of the enactment of the statute under which he pleaded guilty, Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1 (1990). Other than appellant’s unsupported arguments, no factual basis for these claims is provided.
Further, when a direct appeal has been taken, any matter raised or claim known but not raised, will not be considered in a subsequent petition for postconviction relief. Black v. State, 560 N.W.2d 83, 85 (Minn. 1997). “[D]elay in seeking relief is a relevant consideration in determining whether that relief should be granted.” Fox v. State, 474 N.W.2d 821, 826 (Minn. 1991). The issues raised by appellant in this appeal were known at the time of his direct appeal in 1991. See State v. Wilson, 1991 WL 210045 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Nov. 26, 1991); see also Fox, 474 N.W.2d at 824 (“Only where a claim is so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time direct appeal was taken and decided will post-conviction relief be allowed.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. We therefore affirm.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.