State v. Duncan
This text of 203 N.W.2d 392 (State v. Duncan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery under Minn. St. 609.245. Upon this appeal from the judgment of conviction, we also review the order denying his subsequent petition for postconviction relief. Essentially, defendant contends that (1) his arrest was unlawful and therefore evidence seized as a result of the arrest was inadmissible, (2) the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict, (3) the evidence admitted at the postconviction hearing proved that he did not participate in the crime, and (4) his public defender did not represent him adequately. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no error.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
203 N.W.2d 392, 295 Minn. 541, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-duncan-minn-1973.