Burdunice v. State of Minnesota

Background

Lannon Lavar Burdunice, who represented himself, filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his custody based on a Minnesota conviction. A jury found him guilty of second-degree intentional murder in March 2018, and the state trial court sentenced him to 480 months in prison. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in July 2019, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 9, 2020.

While the federal case was pending, Burdunice filed several post-conviction petitions in Minnesota state court. The state courts denied those petitions, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued at least two opinions affirming those denials.

Claims in the Amended Petition

Burdunice raised eight grounds for relief. He argued that the evidence was legally insufficient and did not support the murder conviction; that the trial court improperly excluded evidence concerning the victim’s past behavior; that the prosecutor violated Batson v. Kentucky by striking an African American juror based on race; that the trial court improperly allowed impeachment with prior convictions; that his firearm-possession conviction should be vacated because the jury was discharged without completing the verdict form and without a reasonable opportunity to poll the jurors; and that cumulative prosecutorial misconduct, trial-court errors, and bias violated his rights to due process, double jeopardy, equal protection, and a fair trial.

Court’s Analysis

The magistrate judge analyzed each claim and concluded that none entitled Burdunice to relief under § 2254 or related legal authority. Burdunice objected to the report and recommendation, but he did not identify specific portions of it to challenge. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation.

Burdunice also asked to voluntarily withdraw his amended petition. Because the State had already answered and moved to dismiss, the court explained that he could withdraw the petition only by court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The court considered the relevant factors, including the State’s effort and expense, the timing of Burdunice’s request, and his failure to identify the additional arguments he wanted to pursue. The court concluded that the factors weighed against allowing withdrawal and found no reason to permit him to withdraw the petition to avoid an adverse ruling.

Disposition

The court denied Burdunice’s request to voluntarily withdraw his amended petition, adopted the June 29, 2022 report and recommendation, and denied and dismissed the amended § 2254 petition with prejudice. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue.