Legal Opinion

Buckingham v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 6, 2011No. A10-2240PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

STRAS, Justice.

Appellant Justin Lamont Buckingham appeals the postconviction court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Because we conclude that Buckingham’s claims are procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976), we affirm.

I

Our opinion in Buckingham’s direct appeal discusses more fully the facts underlying Buckingham’s convictions on various counts of murder. See State v. Buckingham, 772 N.W.2d 64, 66-69 (Minn.2009). We nonetheless briefly recite the facts for the purpose of addressing Buckingham’s claims for postconviction relief.

On…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. KnafflaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  2. State v. ScalesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
  3. Reed v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  4. Dobbins v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  5. White v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Hooper v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  2. Andersen v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  3. Erickson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  4. Berkovitz v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
  5. Frank Duane Lussier v. State of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API