State v. Cotton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Cotton

201 N.W.2d 859, 294 Minn. 559, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1470

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided November 3, 1972·No. No. 42247·Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, Minn. St. 609.245, and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 0-20 years. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and seeks review of an order denying post-conviction relief. Defendant claims that he did not receive adequate representation from his privately retained counsel because counsel failed to interview various alibi witnesses or call them to testify. Defendant has not met his burden of proving these claims.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Curiam.

Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, Minn. St. 609.245, and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 0-20 years. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and seeks review of an order denying post-conviction relief. Defendant claims that he did not receive adequate representation from his privately retained counsel because counsel failed to interview various alibi witnesses or call them to testify. Defendant has not met his burden of proving these claims.

Affirmed.

State v. Cotton, 201 N.W.2d 859, 294 Minn. 559, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1470 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

201 N.W.2d 859 (State v. Cotton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.