Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief because, even if the facts alleged in the postconviction petition were proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, appellant is conclusively entitled to no relief. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
1Opinion of the Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A23-1827 Hennepin County Gaïtas, J. Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. Filed: February 5, 2025 Office of Appellate Courts State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Nico Ratkowski, Ratkowski Law PLLC, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Britta Nicholson, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS The district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying appellant’s…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- McCleskey v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.