Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A10-2240

Hennepin County

Stras, J.

Justin Lamont Buckingham, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Justin Lamont Buckingham, Stillwater, Minnesota, pro se. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because appellant's claims are procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976). Affirmed. Filed: July 6, 2011 Office of Appellate Courts

1

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

Download A10-2240, Justin Lamont Buckingham, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Responden

Minnesota Law