No. 18-7753
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-law criminal-procedure double-jeopardy due-process judicial-review rules-of-construction separation-of-powers statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus Securities
FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus Securities
Latest Conference:
2019-04-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did MN Supreme Court violate Separation of Powers?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did MN Supreme Court violate Separation of Powers? 2. Did MN Supreme Court’s interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 590 and Minn.R.Crim.P. 27.03 unconstitutionally permit violations of the Constitution to go unredressed and did it permit Plaintiff’s sentence to go uncorrected despite facially being in violation of Double Jeopardy and State Statutes? 3. Did MN Supreme Court’s violation of rules of statutory construction render-their effort to save their judicially ~ created exception unavailing? 4. Did MN Supreme Court draw an unreasoned distinction between Minn.Stat. § 609.035, 609.04 and 611.02. Joel Marvin Munt . .
Docket Entries
2019-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-12
Waiver of right of respondent State of Minnesota to respond filed.
2019-01-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 7, 2019)
Attorneys
State of Minnesota
Patrick R. McDermott — Office of Blue Earth County Attorney, Respondent
Patrick R. McDermott — Office of Blue Earth County Attorney, Respondent