This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C6-96-1586

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Leonard J. Richards,

Appellant.

Filed December 17, 1996

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded

Forsberg, Judge *

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 87900689

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN 55101; Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, 2000-C Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for Respondent)

Leonard J. Richards, Post Office Box 10, Stillwater, MN 55082-0010 (Pro Se Appellant)

Considered and decided by Huspeni, Presiding Judge, Norton, Judge, and Forsberg, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

FORSBERG, Judge

Richards appeals the district court's denial of his application for funds for services under Minn. Stat. § 611.21 (1994) and his request for appointed counsel. Because the district court correctly denied the appointment of counsel for this postconviction proceeding, but failed to make required findings for its denial of funds for services, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS

Leonard Richards was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of Robert Stratton. His conviction was ultimately upheld on direct appeal, State v. Richards, 495 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. 1992), and he now seeks postconviction relief pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.01-06 (1994).

Richards requested appointment of counsel and applied for $5,000 in public funds in order to access legal materials for the preparation of a postconviction relief petition. His requests were summarily denied by the district court. Richards now appeals.

D E C I S I O N

The district court correctly denied Richards's request for appointed counsel. Richards failed to show any statutory or constitutional authority for the proposition that he has a right to counsel for his postconviction appeal. In fact, the Minnesota postconviction relief statute makes explicit that counsel must be appointed on behalf of indigent defendants in postconviction proceedings only when the defendant "has not already had a direct appeal of the conviction." Minn. Stat. § 590.05 (1994). And there is no federal constitutional right to representation in postconviction proceedings when a defendant has had a direct appeal. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555, 107 S. Ct. 1990, 1993 (1987).

The district court erred, however, by failing to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law when it denied Richards's application for funds for services. Minn. Stat. § 611.21(c) (1994) provides that "the court shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law that state the basis" for denying the petitioner's request. (Emphasis added.) Without such findings, we are unable to take meaningful review of the decision and must remand to allow the district court to set forth its reasoning for the denial of Richards's application as required by Minn. Stat. § 611.21(c). Cf. State v. Hogetvedt, 488 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Minn. App. 1992) (remanding for new trial because of failure of district court to give reasons as mandated by Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 2(c) (requiring district court to state reasons for ordering use of physical restraints during trial)); State v. Taylor, 427 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. App. 1988) (remanding for lack of written findings mandated by Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 2 (requiring district court to make findings after bench trial)), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1988).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.