Emem Ufot Udoh v. Minnesota

The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the scope of Chapter §590 does not permit or allow a Defendant to raise - right of access to court - assignment of constitutional error in challenge to the Defendant’s conviction or sentence. Under these circumstances and in light of recent Supreme Court ruling in Byington v. State, 981 N.W.2d 193 (Minn. October 26, 2022), Min­ nesota Chapter §590 does guarantee a Defendant such right of action as an assignment of error under the “Other Disposition” Prong of Chapter §590 to challenge Petitioner’s conviction or sentence in a criminal case. The question presented for review is: QUESTION ONE: WHETHER THE COURT OF AP­ PEALS ERRED AND VIOLATED PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT IN AFFIRMING THE DIS­ TRICT COURT POST-CONVICTION ORDER DENY­ ING RELIEF ON DEFENDANT’S - RIGHT OF ACCESS TO COURT TO TIMELY FILE AN APPEL­ LATE BRIEF IN A19-1129 APPEAL CHALLENGING HIS CONVICTION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS

1. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, (2) INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL, (3) INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL, (4) A BRADY VIOLATION, (5) THE STATE’S KNOW­ INGLY USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY, AND

2. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BASED UPON THE STATE’S VOUCHING FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINANTS.