Graham V Mna07-1923

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1923

John Remington Graham, Appellant, ORDER OPINION vs. District Court File No. 62-CX-07-003298 State of Minnesota, Respondent.

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Ross, Judge. BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE: 1.

Kent Jones was convicted in 2001 for the 1992 murder of Linda Jensen.

2.

The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Jones’s conviction of first-degree

murder due to improper exclusion of evidence and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial. State v. Jones, 678 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2004). 3.

On remand, appellant brought a motion in the district court on

September 16, 2004 on Jones’s behalf, seeking to discharge the public defender and have an outside attorney appointed at public expense due to an alleged conflict of interest between Jones and his court-appointed counsel. 4.

The district court denied the motion as premature and contrary to state law.

It concluded that Jones had the options of discharging the public defender’s office in its

entirety or having a new conflict-free attorney appointed by the public defender’s office or engaging private counsel. 5.

Jones decided to discharge the public defender’s office and hire appellant as

his attorney. 6

At the same hearing, appellant was immediately informed by both the state

public defender and the prosecution that he would not be paid from state funds for representing Jones. 7.

Thereafter, appellant was recognized as the attorney of record by the

district court. 8.

On the eve of trial, appellant brought a motion to withdraw as Jones’s

counsel, which motion was granted by the district court. 9.

Jones was convicted at his second trial.

10.

In February 2007, appellant sought $215,750 in compensation from the

state for his representation of Jones up through his withdrawal, under a claim of quantum meruit. 11.

The state brought a motion seeking dismissal of the complaint for failure to

state a claim on which relief could be granted. 12.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and this appeal follows.

13.

The elements of a claim of quantum meruit are: (1) a benefit is conferred;

(2) the defendant appreciates and knowingly accepts the benefit; and (3) the defendant’s retention of the benefit without payment would be inequitable under the circumstances.

2

Acton Constr. Co. v. State, 383 N.W.2d 416, 417 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. May 22, 1986). 14.

The state was not unjustly enriched by appellant’s representation of Jones

because appellant did not confer a benefit on the state. Appellant’s arguments concerning the scientific evidence that he had uncovered which “destroy[ed] the state’s case” is undermined by the fact that Jones was convicted at his second trial. 15.

Furthermore, the state did not knowingly or willingly accept any benefit,

but rather informed appellant from the outset that he would not be paid from any state funds for representing Jones. Therefore, appellant is estopped from seeking payment. See Black’s Law Dictionary 589 (8th ed. 2004) (defining estoppel as “[a] bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true”). 16.

Lastly, Minn. Stat. § 481.06(6) (2006), which provides that an attorney

shall not reject the cause of the defenseless or oppressed does not imply that an attorney shall be monetarily rewarded for accepting the cause. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1.

The district court’s order is affirmed.

3

2.

Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(b), this order opinion

will not be published and shall not be cited as precedent except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Dated: July 25, 2008

BY THE COURT /s/ Judge Francis J. Connolly

4