This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Marlowe Brooks, petitioner,
Filed December 12, 2006
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 00087189
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Thomas A. Weist, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Harten, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
The district court denied Marlowe Brooks’s third petition for postconviction relief. On appeal, Brooks argues that his plea of guilty to attempted first-degree murder lacked an adequate factual basis on the element of premeditation and that the sentencing court erred in using the Hernandez method of sentencing. Because the premeditation issue is procedurally barred and the Hernandez method was properly applied, we affirm.
F A C T S
Brooks was charged with fatally shooting one man and shooting at another as the
two men left a store in
direct appeal, we held that Brooks’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was
properly denied because the plea was accurate, voluntary, and intelligent. State
v. Brooks, No. C1-01-1253, 2002 WL 1277970, at *2-*3 (Minn. App. June 11,
2002), review denied (
In his third postconviction-relief proceeding, Brooks makes two arguments. First, he alleges that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation to support his guilty plea to first-degree attempted murder. The district court concluded that this claim was procedurally barred and that it failed on the merits. Second, he alleges that the district court improperly used the Hernandez method to calculate his presumptive sentence. The district court held that the Hernandez method was properly used. Brooks appeals both determinations.
D E C I S I O N
decisions of a postconviction court are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Doppler
v. State, 660 N.W.2d 797, 801 (
Under the Knaffla rule, when a direct appeal has been taken, all claims that
were raised or could have been raised will not be considered in a petition for
postconviction relief. Knaffla v. State, 309
In this appeal, Brooks argues that there was no factual basis for finding premeditation and that the district court therefore should not have accepted his guilty plea to first-degree attempted murder. Previously, on direct appeal, we considered whether there was a factual basis for finding premeditation. We said:
The objective evidence necessary to show premeditation
was provided by Brooks’s testimony.
Brooks admitted that he was carrying a gun because Collins and Harris
had threatened him. Brooks also admitted
that he shot at the men seven or eight times and that, after pursuing them
across a street and into an alley, he killed Collins with two or three more
shots at close range. Pursuing a person
and shooting him at close range has been held to be indicative of
premeditation. . . . The district court’s finding of premeditation is supported
by the record.
State v. Brooks,
No. C1-01-1253, 2002 WL 1277970, at *3 (Minn. App. June 11, 2002), review denied (
We are unable to discern a significant difference between Brooks’s claim on direct appeal and his current argument. Furthermore, Brooks’s claim does not present a novel legal issue, and we cannot conclude that the interests of justice require us to engage in further review. The Knaffla rule therefore bars further consideration of Brooks’s claim, and we cannot revisit the issue on its merits.
Brooks’s motion to correct his
sentence, however, is not barred by the Knaffla
rule. A court “at any time may correct a
sentence not authorized by law.” Minn.
R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9. In State v. Stutelberg, this court
interpreted the rule to permit challenges to a sentence despite previous,
unsuccessful challenges. 435 N.W.2d 632,
a defendant is being sentenced for two convictions, the Hernandez method permits the district court to calculate the
presumptive sentence for the second conviction using felony points based on the
In this case, if the district court
had not applied the Hernandez method,
Brooks’s presumptive sentence on the second-degree murder conviction would have
been 306 months.
the offenses occurred in a single behavioral incident, the Hernandez method was properly applied. Crimes committed in a single behavioral
incident against multiple victims will be considered separate offenses under
section 609.035 as long as doing so will not unfairly exaggerate the
criminality of the conduct. State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440, 453
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art, VI, § 10.