Nathan Christopher Braun, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0924

Nathan Christopher Braun, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed March 2, 2020
Affirmed
Bratvold, Judge

Benton County District Court
File No. 05-CR-16-1323

Nathan C. Braun, Stillwater, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

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

Philip K. Miller, Benton County Attorney, Kathleen L. Reuter, Assistant County Attorney,
Foley, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Connolly,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BRATVOLD, Judge
Appellant, who was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in 2017 and
is self -represented in this appeal, challenges the denial of his second postconviction
petition. We conclude that appellant raises three issues that are procedurally barred, the
2
postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s request for an
evidentiary hearing, and appellant raises six issues for the first time in this appeal for which
we decline review. Thus, we affirm.
FACTS
In August 2016, the state charged appellant Nathan Christopher Braun with
third-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(b) (2014),
alleging that he engaged in sexual penetration with the victim, who was between 13 and 16
years old, and that Braun was more than 24 months older than the victim. The complaint
alleged that then 24-year-old Braun was in a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old female,
and that Braun told her that he was 17 years old. After a jury trial i n July 2017, the jury
found Braun guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The district court sentenced
Braun to 91 months in prison.
Braun appealed from his judgment of conviction and our opinion sets out the facts
proven at trial, which we do not repeat here. See State v. Braun, No. A17-1889, 2018 WL
4201208 (Minn. App. Sept. 4, 2018), review denied (Minn. Oct. 24, 2018). In his opening
brief and pro se supplemental brief , Braun raised issues that we rejected as grounds for a
new trial. First, we concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
evidence of Braun’s conduct towards the victim’s friends, including photographs taken by
Braun. Id. at *3. Second, we determined that the district court did not commit plain error
in admitting evidence about a pornographic video that Braun made with a woman other
than the victim and which came before the jury when Braun mentioned the video in a
recorded statement that was played during an officer’s testimony. Id. We reasoned that
3
Braun did not object, his recorded statement was otherwise admissible, and “no rule or
caselaw clearly imposes a duty on the district court to sua sponte redact any and all
inadmissible portions of an otherwise admissible recorded statement.” Id.
Third, we reviewed Braun’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct and determined that
three pieces of evidence were prior bad acts under Minn. R. Evid. 404(b) of which the state
failed to give the required Spreigl notice, which was “plain and obvious error.” Id. at *3-4.
We concluded, however, that there was no reasonable likelihood that the plain error had a
“significant effect” on the jury’s verdict because the evidence against Braun was
“substantial” and, in particular, the victim’s testimony “strongly supports [Braun’s] guilt,
standing alone.” Id. at *4-5.
Finally, we determined that Braun forfeited the four issues raised in his pro se
supplemental brief because they were “without merit or support” and did not include
“citations to relevant facts before this court or legal authority.” Id. at *5. Braun argued that
(1) his attorney failed to disclose the state’s evidence to him directly and failed to subpoena
two witnesses to testify on his behalf; (2) the state failed to prove that his statement to
police was false; (3) Braun’s statements to one witness were taken out of context; and
(4) police received a computer hard drive from the victim, who said Braun had left it at her
home; Braun claimed the victim was biased and the state failed to establish chain of
custody. Id. We affirmed Braun’s conviction, id. at *5, and he petitioned for review, which
the Minnesota Supreme Court denied.
Roughly two weeks after the supreme court denied review, Braun petitioned for
postconviction relief on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, insufficiency of the
4
evidence, the state’s failure to obtain and disclose exculpatory evidence, the state’s failure
to disclose other evidence before trial, improper admission of character evidence , witness
perjury, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Braun also requested that the
postconviction court appoint counsel. The postconviction court forwarded Braun’s pro se
petition to the appellate public defender’s office, who denied Braun’s request because the
office had represented Braun in his direct appeal. See Minn. Stat. § 590.05 (2018). The
postconviction court denied Braun’s petition without a hearing because his petition
“contain[ed] only argumentative assertions without factual support and raise[d] issues that
have been, or should have been, asserted on direct appeal.”
Three months later, Braun filed a second petition for postconviction relief, in which
Braun appears to have raised issues of (1) prosecutorial misconduct; (2) insufficiency of
the evidence; (3) the state’s failure to obtain and disclose exculpatory evidence; (4) the
district court’s error in instructing the jury; (5) the district court’s error in admitting
evidence; and (6) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The postconviction court denied Braun’s request for relief in a 30-page
memorandum and order without an evidentiary hearing. The postconviction court
determined that each issue in the second postconviction petition was either procedurally
barred or lacked merit. Braun appeals.
D E C I S I O N
This court reviews a summary denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of
discretion. Roberts v. State, 856 N.W.2d 287, 290 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied
(Minn. Jan. 28, 2015). Minnesota’s postconviction statute requires a postconviction court
5
to hold an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction petition “[u]nless the petition and the
files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no
relief.” Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2018). A postconviction court is permitted to
“summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same
petitioner” or “when the issues raised in [the petition] have previously been decided by the
court of appeals or the supreme court in the same case.” Id., subd. 3 (2018).
Two procedural bars are relevant to our analysis of Braun’s appeal. First, we
consider the Knaffla rule, which states that “where 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, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741
(Minn. 1976). Townsend v. State recognized a second procedural bar and held that
postconviction courts “will not consider claims that were raised or were known and could
have been raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief.” 723 N.W.2d 14, 18 (Minn.
2006).
I. Braun raises issues that are procedurally barred.
The postconviction court concluded that Braun’s claims regarding sufficiency of the
evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct are procedurally
barred. We address each claim in turn.
Braun challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues that his conviction rests
on “mere speculation.” He also claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Both claim s,
however, were known to Braun at the time of his direct appeal. Thus, these issues are barred
6
by Knaffla. 243 N.W.2d at 741. Additionally, both issues were raised in Braun’s first
postconviction petition, rendering them barred by Townsend. 723 N.W.2d at 19.
We read Braun ’s brief to identify four instances of prosecutorial misconduct.
Knaffla bars one of these instances because Braun raised prosecutorial misconduct with
regard to exculpatory evidence in his direct appeal, and the remaining claims of
prosecutorial misconduct were known to Braun at the time of his direct appeal. 243 N.W.2d
at 741; see also Braun, 2018 WL 4201208, at *4. Additionally , Townsend bars Braun’s
other prosecutorial misconduct arguments because he raised them in his first
postconviction petition. 723 N.W.2d at 19.
Thus, we conclude that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion because
these three claims were raised, or should have been raised, either in Braun’s direct appeal
or his first postconviction petition.
II. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied an
evidentiary hearing.

Braun argues the postconviction court erred when it denied his request for an
evidentiary hearing. The state responds that Braun “has not established facts that meet the
standard for an evidentiary hearing.” A postconviction court’s denial of an evidentiary
hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Caldwell v. State, 853 N.W.2d 766, 770
(Minn. 2014). We review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Id.
“[I]f the files and records of the proceeding conclusively establish that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief,” a postconviction court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing.

7
Colbert v. State, 870 N.W.2d 616, 622 (Minn. 2015); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04,
subd. 1. But if the postconviction court finds that “material facts are in dispute and that the
allegations in the petition, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief, then the court must
schedule an evidentiary hearing.” Martin v. State, 825 N.W.2d 734, 740 (Minn. 2013).
The postconviction court denied Braun’s petition without a hearing because Braun
did not raise any issue of material fact and was not entitled to his requested relief. Most of
Braun’s claims are procedurally barred, and our review of the record does not indicate that
he is entitled to relief. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Braun’s petition without an evidentiary hearing.
III. We decline to review issues that Braun raises for the first time in his appellate
brief.

In his brief to this court, Braun raises issues that he failed to assert in his second
postconviction petition. Generally, we will not consider issues raised for the first time on
appeal, and “[i]t is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal
from denial of postconviction relief.” Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Minn.
2006) (refusing to decide postconviction claims raised for the first time on appeal) (quoting
Azure v. State, 700 N.W.2d 443, 447 (Minn. 2005)); see Davis v. State, 784 N.W.2d 387,
391 (Minn. 2010) (“We will not address [an] argument for the first time on appeal from a
postconviction petition.”).
Braun raises six issues for the first time on appeal: (1) the state’s plea offer was
coercive; (2) the district court made “improper” statements during jury instructions;

8
(3) Braun’s statutory right to counsel was violated because the district court did not appoint
counsel for either of his first or second postconviction petitions or for this appeal; (4) his
right to a fair trial was violated by unspecified but “multiple prosecutorial and judicial
malfeasances and nonfeasances ”; (5) this court abused its discretion when we concluded
that Braun forfeited the issues in his pro se supplemental brief in his direct appeal; and
(6) the postconviction court was biased.
We recognize that this court may consider issues raised for the first time on appeal
if the interests of justice require it, and if the record is adequate and consideration would
not unfairly surprise a party. Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996); State v.
Berrios, 788 N.W.2d 135, 141 (Minn. App. 2010) (refusing to consider the merits of an
issue raised for the first time on appeal without an adequate record), review denied (Minn.
Nov. 16, 2010). Braun does not explain why he did not present any of these six issues in
his second postconviction petition, nor does he argue that the interests of justice require
review. We therefore decline to review these issues.
Even so, we observe that five of the six issues are procedurally barred. Issues one,
two, and four were all known to Braun at the time of trial and, therefore, are Knaffla-barred.
243 N.W.2d at 741. Issue three is also procedurally barred because this issue was raised
in Braun’s first postconviction petition. See Townsend , 723 N.W.2d at 18-19 Issue five,
which challenges this court’s determination that Braun forfeited issues raised in his pro se
supplemental brief filed in his direct appeal, is also procedurally barred. Braun filed his
first postconviction petition after this court issued its opinion; Braun was thus aware of this
9
issue before he filed his first postconviction petition. Because Braun did not raise this issue
in his first postconviction petition, it is barred. See Townsend, 723 N.W.2d at 19.
Issue six claims that the postconviction court is biased. Braun fails to support this
issue by specific argument or citations to legal authority. Thus, even if we were to consider
issue six, we would conclude that Braun forfeited the issue. See State v. Bartylla ,
755 N.W.2d 8, 22 (Minn. 2008) (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are
unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).
Affirmed.