This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Alan George Olhausen, Jr.,
State of Minnesota,
Filed October 3, 2006
Cottonwood County District Court
File No. KX-01-13
Daniel S. Adkins,
The Adkins Law Group,
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
L. Douglas Storey, Cottonwood County Attorney, 1044 Third Avenue, Windom, MN 56101 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Minge, Judge.
Appellant Alan George Olhausen, Jr. challenges the decision of the postconviction court dismissing his claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because these claims were known but not raised in appellant’s prior direct appeal, the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s petition for relief. We therefore affirm.
review, a “postconviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an
abuse of discretion.” Zenanko v. State, 688 N.W.2d 861, 864 (
postconviction court summarily denied appellant’s petition for relief,
determining that appellant’s claims are barred because they were known but not
raised in his direct appeal. See State v. Olhausen, 681 N.W.2d 21 (
Here, appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves decisions made by his attorney during trial. In particular, appellant criticizes his attorney’s failure to (1) raise the defense of entrapment; (2) call appellant as a witness; (3) call other defense witnesses to attack the credibility of the state’s informants; (4) seek adequate jury instructions on the state’s burden of proof; (5) seek an instruction on what appellant characterizes as a lesser-included offense of fifth-degree controlled substance crime for distributing a counterfeit narcotic; (6) seek a 50% reduction in his sentence when the evidence supported no more than an attempt to distribute any actual controlled substance; and (7) object to the admission of redacted portions of his tape recorded statements to an undercover officer. Because all of these claims were known to appellant at the time of his direct appeal, appellant is barred under Knaffla from raising them in this postconviction proceeding.
exceptions to Knaffla exist: a claim previously known but not raised in a
direct appeal may nevertheless be considered in a postconviction proceeding “if
the claim is so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the
time of the direct appeal” or when “fairness so requires [consideration of the
claim] and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise
the issue on direct appeal.” Doppler v. State, 660 N.W.2d 797, 801-02
even if appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not barred
under Knaffla, those claims would
fail on their merits also. Appellant’s
postconviction petition fails to allege specific facts to support his claims;
“mere argumentative assertions that lack factual support” are not enough to
sustain a petition for postconviction relief.
Hummel v. State, 617 N.W.2d
561, 564 (
We therefore affirm the decision of the postconviction court summarily denying appellant’s petition for relief.
 Appellant’s postconviction petition also questioned the district court judge’s conduct during trial. On appeal here, appellant does not raise any challenge to the postconviction court’s rejection of these claims.
 At oral arguments before this court, appellant’s attorney conceded that he discussed many of these issues with appellant prior to bringing the direct appeal. This shows that appellant knew of these issues but deliberately chose not to raise them on direct appeal.