may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Eric Roberts, petitioner,
State of Minnesota,
Filed November 25, 1997
Ramsey County District Court
File No. K9942559
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)
Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Darrell C. Hill, Assistant County Attorney, 50 Kellogg Boulevard West, Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Amundson, Judge.
Eric Roberts appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Before Roberts was resentenced, he filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and that the jury heard perjured testimony. The trial court denied Roberts's petition. Roberts appeals.
2. We also conclude that Roberts is barred from raising the ineffectiveness of trial counsel and perjury issues in his postconviction petition because he failed to raise these issues in his direct appeal in Roberts I.
After a direct appeal, all issues raised and all claims known, but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief. Dent v. State, 441 N.W.2d 497, 499 (Minn. 1989) (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976)). The claims will not be considered unless the
claim is so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time the direct appeal was taken and decided * * *.
Case v. State, 364 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. 1985).
A letter in Robert's brief indicates he discussed raising the ineffectiveness of trial counsel issue with his appellate counsel during his appeal in Roberts I, but then failed to do so. See Harris v. State, 470 N.W.2d 167, 169 (Minn. App. 1991) (correct procedure for raising ineffectiveness of counsel issue is to file direct appeal, then move for dismissal to allow evidentiary hearing). Moreover, Roberts's perjury issue is not so novel that he would not have known about it before filing Roberts I.