Joel Marvin Munt, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief as to his equal protection claim. 2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief as to his claims of entrapment, trial counsel’s disregard of his “defense objective of choice,” and witness tampering. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
1Opinion of the Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A24-0259 Blue Earth County Thissen, J. Joel Marvin Munt, Appellant, vs. Filed: July 16, 2025 Office of Appellate Courts State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Joel Munt, Rush City, Minnesota, pro se. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Patrick R. McDermott, Blue Earth County Attorney, Susan B. DeVos, Assistant County Attorney, Mankato, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief as to his…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Scruggs v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- State v. MuntSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.