Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied appellant’s petition for postconviction relief because appellant’s claims are time-barred and the facts alleged in the petition fail to establish an exception to the statutory time bar. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
1Opinion of the Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A25-0182 County of Winona Procaccini, J. Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. Filed: July 30, 2025 Office of Appellate Courts State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Ricky Darnell Waiters, Rush City, Minnesota, pro se. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Karin L. Sonneman, Winona County Attorney, Paul R. Ellison, Assistant County Attorney, Winona, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS The district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied appellant’s petition for…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. KnafflaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Riley v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Schleicher v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- Powers v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Azure v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.