Chim LoVan, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0778

Chim LoVan, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed January 13, 2020
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Nobles County District Court
File No. 53-CR-15-553

Chim LoVan, Faribault, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Joseph N. Sanow, Nobles County Attorney, Worthington, Minnesota; and

Travis J. Smith, Special Assistant County Attorney, Slayton, Minnesota (for respondent).

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Rodenberg,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant Chim LoVan appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition
for postconviction relief, arguing that (1) his right to a fair trial was violated because the

2
district court denied his request for a change of venue; (2) his right to a fair trial was
violated because the district court refused to provide an interpreter who accurately
interpreted his language; and (3) the criminal complaint was constitutionally defective. We
affirm.
FACTS
On June 22, 2016, a jury found appellant guilty of second-degree felony murder
under Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (20 14), second-degree assault under Minn. Stat.
§ 609.222, subd. 2 (2014), third-degree murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.195(a) (2014), and
first-degree manslaughter under Minn. Stat . § 609.20(2) (2014). The district court
sentenced appellant to 200 months in prison.
Appellant filed a direct appeal, arguing that “his constitutional right to confrontation
was violated when the district court allowed a police officer to testify that a homicide
victim identified appellant as the person who had stabbed him.” State v. LoVan, No. A16-
1750, 2017 WL 3687503, at *1 (Minn. App. Aug. 28, 2017), review denied (Minn. Nov. 14,
2017). We affirmed appellant’s conviction in an unpublished opinion. The supreme court
denied review. Id.
Appellant subsequently pe titioned for postconviction re lief, arguing that (1) the
criminal complaint was defective; (2) the district court violated the constitution by finding
the complaint was supported by probable cause; (3) appellant’s trial counsel violated his
right to effective assistance of counsel; (4 ) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct
by withholding evidence and vindictively amendi ng the complaint; (5) the district court
violated appellant’s constitutional right to an unbiased court and violated the Minnesota

3
Judicial Code of Conduct by fa iling to rule on appellant’s request for a change of venue
and allowing media to observe the trial; a nd (6) his sentence was unconstitutional.
Appellant also requested assistance from the pu blic defender’s office. The district court
summarily denied appellant’s motion for an evidentiary hear ing and petition for
postconviction relief.
Concerning appellant’s right to counsel, th e district court found that appellant was
ineligible for appellate public defender se rvices on his petition for postconviction relief
because this was appellant’s “secon d challenge to his conviction.” See Minn. Stat.
§ 590.05 (2018) (stating that the state public defender shall represent a petitioner for
postconviction relief if the petitioner has not already had a direct appeal).
Concerning his request for postconvic tion relief, the district court cited State v.
Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976), and concluded that appellant raised six issues
in his petition, all of which were known, but none of which were raised on direct appeal.
The district court further found that appellant failed to present any novel legal issues and
that the “interests of justice do not require additional review.”
This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by “arbitrarily denying”
his petition for postconviction relief “on several grounds.” Appellant contends that (1) his
right to a fair trial was violated because the district court denied his request for a change of
venue; (2) his right to a fair trial was violated because the district court refused to provide

4
an interpreter who was able to accurately interpret his uni que “cultural language”; and
(3) the criminal complaint was constitutionally defective.
“We review a postconviction court’ s summary denial of a petition for
postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Andersen v. State, 913 N.W.2d 417, 422
(Minn. 2018) (quotations an d citations omitted). “A pos tconviction court abuses its
discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based
its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.”
Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted).
“Upon filing a petition for postconviction reli ef, an evidentiary hearing must be held
unless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the
petitioner is entitled to no relief.” Andersen, 913 N.W.2d at 422 (quotations omitted). “A
petition for postconviction relief after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based
on grounds that could have been raised on di rect appeal of the conviction or sentence.”
Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(2) (2018). “A hearing is not required . . . when the petition
is procedurally barred by the Knaffla rule.” Fairbanks v. State , 882 N.W.2d 226, 229
(Minn. 2016).
Under Knaffla, when “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.” 243 N.W.2d at 741. This Knaffla bar includes “claims which
appellant should have known but did not raise at the time of an earlier review.” Quick v.
State, 757 N.W.2d 278, 280 (Minn. 2008). “There are two exceptions to the Knaffla [bar]:

5
(1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.”
Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn. 2005).
Because the district court denied appe llant’s petition for po stconviction relief,
appellant is not entitled to relief on appeal unle ss he can show error in the district court’s
determination that his postconviction claims are Knaffla-barred. Appellant fails to do so.
The record makes clear that appellant knew or should have known at the time of his
direct appeal of the existence of the three cl aims raised by his postconviction petition. If
appellant wanted to raise these three claims, he should have done so in his direct appeal.
Moreover, appellant’s claims do not appear to meet either of the exceptions to the
Knaffla bar, and he makes no argument in his briefing that either exception applies.
The district court acted within its discretion when it denied appellant’s petition for
postconviction relief. Appellant’s claims are Knaffla-barred.
Affirmed.