Giovanni German Vasquez Rosales, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-0962

Giovanni German Vasquez Rosales, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed January 21, 2025
Affirmed
Kirk, Judge*

Mower County District Court
File No. 50-CR-19-2510

Giovanni Vasquez Rosales, Faribault, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

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

Kristen Nelsen, Mower County Attorney, Scott K. Springer, Assistant County Attorney,
Austin, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Frisch, Chief 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NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
KIRK, Judge
Appellant Giovanni German Vasquez Rosales challenges the district court’s denial
of his petition for postconviction relief. Because the district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that Rosales’s postconviction petition was Knaffla1 barred, we
affirm.
FACTS
In 2019, respondent State of Minnesota charged Rosales with seven counts of
second-degree criminal sexual conduct after he sexually abused his 15-year -old cousin on
several different occasions. A jury found Rosales guilty on all seven counts. The district
court entered a conviction on one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(h)(iii) (2016), and sentenced Rosales to 108
months in prison.
Rosales appealed his conviction, arguing that (1) he did not receive effective
assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to redact a piece of evidence and
failed to object to other evidence that significantly undermined Rosales’s defense theory,
and (2) the state engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, requiring a new trial. In a pro se
supplemental brief, Rosales argued that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel
because his attorney failed to call material character witnesses at trial. We affirmed

1 State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976).
3
Rosales’s conviction. State v. Rosales, No. A22-1252, 2023 WL 5344135 (Minn. App.
Aug. 21, 2023), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 19, 2023).
Rosales subsequently petitioned for postconviction relief. In his petition, Rosales
challenged his conviction on two grounds: (1) his trial counsel violated his constitutional
right to a fair trial by not having seven character witnesses testify at trial, and (2) he
received ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest stemming from a
personal relationship between his trial counsel and Rosales’s ex -wife’s father. The state
opposed the petition.
The district court denied Rosales’s petition for postconviction relief without a
hearing. The court determined that both of Rosales’s postconviction claims “constitute[d]
argumentative assertions that are not factually supported” and were procedurally barred
under Knaffla.
Rosales appeals the denial of his postconviction petition.
DECISION
Rosales challenges the district court’s denial of his postconviction petition, arguing
that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when his trial attorney failed to call
seven character witnesses.2 We review a district court’s “denial of a postconviction
petition for an abuse of discretion.” Martin v. State, 969 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn. 2022).
“A district court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or

2 In his petition for postconviction relief, Rosales raised two ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claims. In this appeal, Rosales challenges the denial of his postconviction petition
on only this ground.
4
capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly
erroneous factual findings.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Rosales has had a direct appeal of his conviction. Rosales, 2023 WL 5344135, at *1.
“[W]here 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.”
Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d at 741. The rule in Knaffla also bars claims that the petitioner knew
or should have known about at the time of direct appeal. Colbert v. State, 870 N.W.2d 616,
626 (Minn. 2015). But a claim is not Knaffla barred if (1) “a novel legal issue is presented,”
or (2) “the interests of justice require review.” Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.
2005).
In its order denying postconviction relief, the district court determined that
Rosales’s postconviction claims were barred under Knaffla. On appeal, Rosales does not
argue that the postconviction court improperly applied Knaffla to his ineffective-
assistance-of-trial-counsel claim but instead seeks substantive review of the claim. We
conclude that the postconviction court correctly determined that Rosales’s postconviction
petition is barred by the Knaffla rule. Rosales raised the same ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel issue on direct appeal and we denied his claim. Even if this were not the case, the
district court correctly determined that Rosales knew or should have known about the
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim at the time of his direct appeal.
Rosales also failed to argue whether his claim falls within an exception to the
Knaffla rule. See Hooper v. State, 838 N.W.2d 775, 787-88 (Minn. 2013) (stating that a
reviewing court will decline to apply the Knaffla exceptions if they are not raised by the
5
petitioner). And an independent review of the record does not persuade us that an exception
applies.
We conclude that Rosales’s arguments are barred under the Knaffla rule because
they were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal and no exception was raised or
applies. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rosales’s
petition for postconviction relief.
Affirmed.