THE CRIME: Timothy Eling, Harold Gustafson, and Guy Hathaway decided to rob the pharmacy at Mounds Park Hospital in St. Paul. On October 25, 1982, they donned ski masks and entered the pharmacy. Behind her window, the pharmacist called the switchboard to warn of the men's approach. While the men forced their way into the office with three guns drawn, Oakdale Officer Richard Walton emerged from an elevator. Although Officer Walton shot Eling in the leg, the killers shot Officer Walton in the head several times. He died the next morning.
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea never got to hear an appeal from Timothy Eling because of a simple twist of fate. After serving 29 years, Eling was released from prison by Governor Mark Dayton's Corrections Commissioner Tom Roy because Roy said he was impressed by Eling's conduct in the second half of his time in prison and his counselling of younger prisoners against drug abuse. But in March, 2017, Eling was returned to prison to complete his life sentence because his probation-required urine test showed that he was now using methamphetamine. See here. A police officer who arrested an armed Eling as he fled a 1972 pharmacy robbery now says he wishes he had shot Eling ten years before Eling killed Officer Walton.
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea did get to reject two appeals from Hathaway and Gustafson.
First, in 2007, The Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's second post-conviction appeal. See here.
First, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because Hathaway was illiterate at the time of the murder.
Second, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the citations to the law were wrong at some points in the trial.
Third, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the prosecutor referred to the victim as "Officer Walton" during the trial.
Fourth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the trial violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court noted that there was no factual basis for this claim.
Fifth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because was improperly denied the ability to attend the hearing on his first post-conviction petition. Hathaway did not, however, have a right to attend that hearing.
Sixth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because newly-discovered evidence could have led to an acquittal. The Supreme Court noted that the evidence was new was actually known to Hathaway at trial or should have been known.
Seventh, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court scrutinized the record and found counsel to be effective.
Eighth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should have been guaranteed taxpayer-funded counsel for this third appeal. The Supreme Court noted that Minnesota law only guarantees taxpayer-funded legal representation for the first appeal.
Second, in 2008, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's second post-conviction from his conviction and sentence. See here.
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea never got to hear an appeal from Timothy Eling because of a simple twist of fate. After serving 29 years, Eling was released from prison by Governor Mark Dayton's Corrections Commissioner Tom Roy because Roy said he was impressed by Eling's conduct in the second half of his time in prison and his counselling of younger prisoners against drug abuse. But in March, 2017, Eling was returned to prison to complete his life sentence because his probation-required urine test showed that he was now using methamphetamine. See here. A police officer who arrested an armed Eling as he fled a 1972 pharmacy robbery now says he wishes he had shot Eling ten years before Eling killed Officer Walton.
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea did get to reject two appeals from Hathaway and Gustafson.
First, in 2007, The Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's second post-conviction appeal. See here.
First, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because Hathaway was illiterate at the time of the murder.
Second, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the citations to the law were wrong at some points in the trial.
Third, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the prosecutor referred to the victim as "Officer Walton" during the trial.
Fourth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because the trial violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court noted that there was no factual basis for this claim.
Fifth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because was improperly denied the ability to attend the hearing on his first post-conviction petition. Hathaway did not, however, have a right to attend that hearing.
Sixth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should be excused from killing Officer Walton because newly-discovered evidence could have led to an acquittal. The Supreme Court noted that the evidence was new was actually known to Hathaway at trial or should have been known.
Seventh, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he had ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court scrutinized the record and found counsel to be effective.
Eighth, the Supreme Court rejected Hathaway's claim that he should have been guaranteed taxpayer-funded counsel for this third appeal. The Supreme Court noted that Minnesota law only guarantees taxpayer-funded legal representation for the first appeal.
Second, in 2008, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's second post-conviction from his conviction and sentence. See here.
First the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's claim that he should have a new trial because of newly-discovered evidence. The Supreme Court noted that this claim was time-barred because the allegedly new evidence should have been known and asserted at the time of the direct appeal.
Second, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's claim based on the assertion that a State witness provided false testimony at trial because petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to entitle him to relief.
Third, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's claim based on the assertion that the State made a secret deal with a witness in order to obtain testimony against petitioner because petitioner failed to provide factual support for his claim.
Fourth, the Supreme Court rejected Gustafson's claim for taxpayer-funded counsel because he is not entitled to appointed counsel in these post-conviction proceedings because he has already had a direct appeal and a prior post-conviction proceeding.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment