Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied appellant’s postconviction petition because, even if appellant proved the facts alleged in the petition by a preponderance of the evidence at an evidentiary hearing, he would not be entitled to relief as a matter of law. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
1Opinion of the Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A23-1381 Hennepin County Hennesy, J. Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. Filed: January 8, 2025 Office of Appellate Courts State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Berry Alexander Davis, Bayport, Minnesota, pro se. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS The district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied appellant’s postconviction petition…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blackledge v. AllisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- State v. KnafflaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.