This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A05-1044

 

 

Minda Lavette Washington, petitioner,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed May 16, 2006

Affirmed

Halbrooks, Judge

 

 

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 00919698

 

 

Craig E. Cascarano, 150 South 5th Street, Suite 3260, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN  55101; and

 

Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Donna J. Wolfson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487  (for respondent)

 

 

 

            Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

HALBROOKS, Judge

            Appellant challenges the postconviction court’s denial of her petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel related to her 2002 conviction of and sentence for first- and second-degree assault and criminal vehicular operation.  Because appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was fully considered on direct appeal, we affirm. 

FACTS

            Appellant Minda Washington was convicted of first- and second-degree assault and criminal vehicular operation in 2002.  State v. Washington, No. CX-02-936, 2003 WL 21152846, at *1 (Minn. App. May 20, 2003).  She was sentenced to terms of 86 and 36 months on the respective assault convictions, concurrent with a 17-month stayed term for the criminal-vehicular-operation conviction.  Id.  She appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions and the effectiveness of her counsel; appellant also argued that the criminal-vehicular-operation sentence was inappropriate because the underlying crime arose from the same behavioral incident as the first-degree assault conviction.  Id.  This court affirmed appellant’s convictions, reversing and remanding for vacation of her 17-month sentence for the criminal-vehicular-operation conviction.  Id.  In addition, we considered and rejected appellant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Id.at *2-*4.

            Thereafter, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.  The postconviction court denied the petition, finding that “[appellant’s] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been fully considered on direct appeal.”  Appellant now challenges that denial, arguing that the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim should be reviewed again because it was originally pursued pro se. 

D E C I S I O N

            “[W]here direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.”  State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976).  Additionally, a court “may summarily deny a petition when the issues raised in it have previously been decided by the court of appeals.”  Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2000).  We review a denial of postconviction relief based on the Knaffla procedural bar under an abuse-of-discretion standard.  Quick v. State, 692 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Minn. 2005).

            The sole issue in this appeal is whether appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be reconsidered even though it has already been raised and ruled on by this court.  Appellant concedes that the issue of ineffective assistance was raised in her direct appeal.  This court considered the issue and held that appellant’s counsel’s assistance was not ineffective.  State v. Washington, No. CX-02-936, 2003 WL 21152846, at *1 (Minn. App. May 20, 2003). 

            There is simply no merit to appellant’s assertion that her former pro se status warrants reconsideration of her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.  “Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”  Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001).      

            Because appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was fully considered on direct appeal, the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider the claim in her petition for postconviction relief.  See Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252, 243 N.W.2d at 741.

            Affirmed.