This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Richard Arthur Williams,
State of Minnesota,
Filed April 17, 2007
Anoka County District Court
File No. K0-89-8381
Douglas H.R. Olson, Samuel J.H. Sigelman, Rider Bennett, LLP, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4900, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)
Lori R. Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Robert M.A. Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Robert Goodall, Assistant County Attorney, Anoka County Government Center, 2100 Third Avenue, 7th Floor, Anoka, MN 55303 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Shumaker, Judge.
Appellant Richard Arthur Williams challenges the postconviction court’s order denying his petition for relief following an evidentiary hearing. Because there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings and its decision, the court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm.
remand, the district court must execute the mandate of the appellate court
strictly according to the terms of the remand.
Halverson v. Village of Deerwood,
322 N.W.2d 761, 766 (Minn. 1982). Appellant
argues that the postconviction court failed to follow the remand instructions
of this court by refusing to hear expert testimony on the reliability of
eyewitness identification or to rule on the credibility of the victim’s
eyewitness identification. See Williams v. State, No. A04-1075,
2005 WL 832056, at *4 (
reliability of the victim’s identification was an issue at the omnibus hearing
and in appellant’s direct appeal.
that have been previously raised or claims that were known but not raised in a
direct appeal will not be considered in a subsequent petition for
postconviction relief. Quick v. State, 692 N.W.2d 438, 439 (
Credibility of Confession
court reviews the decisions of a postconviction court for an abuse of
discretion. Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414, 422 (
When the petition for relief is based on newly discovered evidence, the petitioner must prove that
(1) the evidence was not known to the petitioner or counsel at the time of trial; (2) the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; (3) the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) the evidence probably would produce an acquittal or a more favorable result.
postconviction court here concluded that Padgett’s confession was doubtful and
unlikely to produce an acquittal or more favorable result. Generally, credibility determinations are
exclusively the province of the fact-finder.
State v. Folkers, 581 N.W.2d
321, 326 (
In particular, the postconviction court found that (1) Padgett claimed to have been drinking and smoking “strong” marijuana the night of the offense, which would suggest an impaired memory and which rendered incredible his detailed account of the offense; (2) Padgett failed to mention this assault, despite the fact that pleas he entered shortly after he first claimed he was the assailant were contingent on his providing information about other assaults; (3) Padgett’s claim that he contacted the county attorney in 1989 about this assault was not credible because the county attorney’s office had no record of the contact, casting doubt on his credibility; (4) there were discrepancies between Padgett’s description of the assault and the victim’s testimony, which was given shortly after the assault in 1989; and (5) while Padgett and appellant had been convicted of several sexual crimes, Padgett’s usual modus operandi differed from appellant’s and this assault was more like appellant’s usual routine.
All of these discrepancies led the postconviction court to conclude that Padgett’s testimony was doubtful and would probably not lead to an acquittal. The court’s findings are supported by evidence and its findings support the conclusions of law. We conclude that the postconviction court’s denial of relief was not an abuse of discretion.