IN SUPREME COURT
Derrick Ramon Dukes, petitioner,
Filed: August 3, 2006
Office of Appellate Courts
S Y L L A B U S
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), did not announce a watershed rule of federal constitutional criminal procedure and, therefore, the Crawford rule is not retroactive to petitioner’s case that was final at the time of the Crawford decision.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
O P I N I O N
Derrick Ramon Dukes appeals the denial of his second petition for postconviction relief. The petition alleged Crawford error entitling Dukes to a new trial. We affirm the district court.
Following a jury
trial, Dukes was convicted of first-degree felony murder, attempted
first-degree felony murder, and attempted aggravated robbery.
State v. Dukes, 544 N.W.2d 13, 15 (
petition for postconviction relief raised six issues; the postconviction court
denied the petition after holding an evidentiary hearing. See Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 250-51 (
“Review of a
postconviction proceeding is limited to determining ‘whether there is
sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a
postconviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of
discretion.’” Zenanko v. State, 688 N.W.2d 861, 864 (
Dukes is entitled to have the rule in Crawford
retroactively applied to his case is governed by the framework of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288
As Dukes concedes, his case was final at the time Crawford was announced. Dukes argues that Crawford applies retroactively to his case because: (1) Crawford did not announce a “new” rule and, alternatively, (2) that Crawford established a “watershed rule” of criminal procedure and therefore is fully retroactive under an exception to Teague’s general rule. The state urges us to adopt the reasoning of federal circuit courts that have held, pursuant to Teague, that Crawford is not retroactively applicable to cases final at the time Crawford was decided.
We have already decided in Danforth v. State, ___ N.W.2d ___, 2006 WL 2075145 (Minn. July 27, 2006), that Crawford announced a new rule, the rule is not a “watershed rule” of federal constitutional criminal procedure and, consequently, the rule is not retroactive to cases that were final at the time of the Crawford decision. Because Dukes’ case was final at the time of the Crawford decision, he is not entitled to retroactive application of Crawford to his case and the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dukes’ petition for relief.
 “A case is final when a ‘judgment of
conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the
time for a petition for certiorari [has] elapsed or a petition for certiorari
[has been filed and] finally denied.’” O’Meara v. State, 679 N.W.2d 334, 339 (