Leroy Roderick Paul, 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, even accepting the evidence presented in support of the petition as true, appellant was 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 A24-0930 Hennepin County Hennesy, J. Took no part, Gaïtas, J. Leroy Roderick Paul, Appellant, vs. Filed: April 30, 2025 Office of Appellate Courts State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Zachary A. Longsdorf, Longsdorf Law Firm, PLC, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, for appellant. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Elizabeth Scoggin, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS The district court did not abuse its…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. KnafflaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Riley v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Rainer v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.