Raymond Joseph Traylor, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-1128

Raymond Joseph Traylor, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed April 11, 2022
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-18-12641

Raymond Joseph Traylor, Sr., Rush City, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Jonathan P. Schmidt, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his petition
for postconviction relief. We affirm.
FACTS
In 2019, appellant Raymond Joseph Traylor appealed his first- and second-degree
criminal-sexual-conduct convictions, arguing that the district court erred by preventing him
from impeaching a witness and by entering convictions for both offenses. We affirmed,
and the supreme court denied Traylor’s petition for further review. State v. Traylor,
No. A19-1236 (Minn. App. Aug. 17, 2020), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 2020).
In March 2021, Traylor moved for postconviction relief, seeking an evidentiary
hearing to address newly discovered evidence. He also requested to obtain a subpoena for
prison documents and recorded phone calls. The state argued that Traylor’s newly-
discovered-evidence claim was procedurally barred. Traylor later withdrew his petition in
order to amend it.
In June 2021, Traylor moved the district court “under rule 60 relief from judgment
or order to vacate conviction; dismiss the complaint, release[e] the petitioner, and
exonerate fully.” Traylor argued that several individuals and state actors, including the
district court, “either advertently or inadvertently manipulated” his case and in doing so
committed fraud on the court.
The district court denied Traylor’s requested relief. This appeal followed.
3
DECISION
Appellate courts review a district court’s denial of a petition for postconviction
relief for an abuse of discretion. Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017). A
district court abuses its discretion when exercise of that discretion is arbitrary or capricious,
based on an erroneous view of the law, or its factual findings are clearly erroneous. Id.
We review legal issues “de novo, but our review of factual issues is limited to whether
there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the [district] court’s findings.” Id.
(quotation omitted).
Evidentiary hearing
Traylor argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for
an evidentiary hearing. A district court’s decision to deny an evidentiary hearing is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Caldwell v. State, 853 N.W.2d 766, 770 (Minn. 2014).
A postconviction petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the petition, files,
and records of the proceeding show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Id. “In
determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers
the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the
petitioner.” Brown v. State, 895 N.W.2d 612, 618 (Minn. 2017). “The petition must allege
more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” Id. (quotation omitted). “An
evidentiary hearing is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved
by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.”
Id. (quotation omitted).
4
The district court determined that Traylor was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing
because his petition “failed to make anything more than argumentative assertions without
factual support.” See id. Traylor’s argument that an evidentiary hearing is required based
on newly discovered evidence is not supported by the record. The district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying Traylor’s request for an evidentiary hearing.
Postconviction relief
Traylor argues that he is entitled to postconviction relief based on newly discovered
evidence.
Under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (2020), “[a] petition for postconviction relief
after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based on grounds that could have been
raised on direct appeal of the conviction or sentence.” Appellate courts will not reconsider
claims already raised on direct appeal. State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn.
1976). The Knaffla rule also bars claims that the petitioner knew about, or should have
known about, at the time of direct appeal. Onyelobi v. State, 932 N.W.2d 272, 278 (Minn.
2019). However, a claim is not Knaffla-barred, “(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).
The district court determined that the records that Traylor sought to subpoena were
contained in the case file, which was available to Traylor at the time of his trial and direct
appeal. Also included in Traylor’s request was evidence intended to be used to impeach a
witness. The district court noted that because Traylor was “aware of this evidence at trial
and at the time of [his] direct appeal,” the evidence cannot be considered “new evidence.”
5
See Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d at 741. We agree. Traylor’s claim is, therefore, barred under
Knaffla.
Supplemental motions for relief
Traylor argues that the district court erred by denying his supplemental motions for
relief. Through Traylor’s supplemental motions, he argued that the actions of various state
actors throughout the progression of his case resulted in fraud on the court.
The district court determined that Traylor’s argument that the state conspired against
him “failed to show that there are any material facts in dispute.” The district court noted
that the “files and records establish that [Traylor] is not entitled to any relief.” The district
court summarily denied Traylor’s claims for relief because the assertions made “were all
known to him at the time of his direct appeal and are procedurally barred.” See Onyelobi,
932 N.W.2d at 278. Traylor has provided no evidence to support a claim of fraud on the
court. And he cites no legal authority supporting relief in any form. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Traylor’s requested relief.
Affirmed.