THE ACT OF MAY 19, 2023 (AIDING AND ABETTING INTENTIONAL FELONY MURDER)
APPLICATION CANNOT BE SUMMARILY DENIED FOR RAISING ISSUES PREVIOUSLY DECIDED IF THE SAME LEGAL QUESTIONS WERE NOT ACTUALLY RESOLVED BY AN APPELLATE COURT
Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and, following the passage of the Act of May 19, 2023 (“the Act”), ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, 2023 Minn. Laws 801, 864-68, filed a preliminary application for relief from his conviction. The Act created a procedure for individuals convicted of first-degree felony murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory of liability to seek relief if they were convicted before changes had been made in 2023 to the first-degree felony murder statute. A preliminary application must be made to the district court and must explain why the applicant is entitled to relief. The district court may then summarily deny the application, deny the application because there is no reasonable probability that the applicant is entitled to relief, or allow the applicant to proceed to the petition stage because there is a reasonable probability they are entitled to relief.
“Summary denial” and “denial” are distinct. Summary denial may be based on several reasons listed in the Act, including when “the issues raised in the application… have previously been decided by the court of appeals or the supreme court in the same case.” Subd. 5(e)(4). The district court summarily denied Appellant’s preliminary application on this basis, concluding that the issues of whether Appellant caused the death of a human being and intentionally aided another with the intent to cause the death of a human being were previously decided by the Supreme Court in Appellant’s direct appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Supreme Court clarifies that “there must have been a match between (1) the issue raised in the preliminary application and (2) an issue that was raised, considered, and resolved in an appellate decision in the same case.” Importantly, for purposes of subdivision 5(e)(4) of the Act, “a court has not previously decided an issue when, in an earlier opinion, it has simply recited facts without considering and resolving the issues.”
The court finds that Appellant’s prior direct appeal did not decide the specific issues raised in Appellant’s preliminary application and, therefore, the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying the application. The court determines the appropriate remedy is remand to the district court for the district court to conduct a reasonable probability analysis under the Act. Crow v. State, A24-0902, 2026 WL 3148518 (Minn. Oct. 21, 2026).
NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT AN APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF WHERE THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED THE JURY TO FIND THE APPLICANT INTENDED TO KILL ANOTHER PERSON
Appellant filed a preliminary application for relief under the Act from his conviction for first-degree felony murder (aiding and abetting), which the district court summarily denied. The Supreme Court finds that, even if the district court erred in summarily denying Appellant’s application, denial would have been appropriate because there is no reasonable probability that Appellant is entitled to relief under the Act.
At his trial, the district court instructed the jury that, to find Appellant guilty, it must find that Appellant intended his assistance of the shooter to cause the victim’s death. Thus, in finding Appellant guilty, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill, so no rational person could believe that Appellant might be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence at an evidentiary hearing that he did not act with intent to cause death, as required by the Act. Bahtuoh v. State, A25-1587, 2026 WL 3224015 (Minn. Oct. 28, 2026).