Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Joel Marvin Munt, Petitioner v. Minnesota
Supreme Court briefJan 7, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
F
IN THE
FQ ED
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
-
Joel Marvin Munt
---PETITIONER
(Your Name)
VS.
State of Minnesota--- RESPONDENT(S)
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
Minnesota Supreme Court
(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Joel Marvin Munt
(Your Name)
5329 Osgood Ave N.
(Address)
Stillwater, MN 55082
(City, State,.Zip Code)
N/A
(Phone Number)
Joel Marvin Munt
CLERK
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
Did MN Supreme Court violate Separation of Powers?
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?
Did MN Supreme Court's violation of rules of statutory
construction render their effort to save their judicially
created exception unavailing?
Did MN Supreme Court draw an unreasoned distinction between
Minn.Stat. § 609.035, 609.04 and 611.02.
Joel Marvin Munt
LIST OF PARTIES
All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of
all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this
petition is as follows:
Joe! Marvin Munt
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPINIONSBELOW ......................................................................................................................1
JURISDICTION.............................................................................................................................2
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...................................................3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................................................... 4
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..........................................................................................35
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................40
INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIXA
3re'ne (o4
Decision of the Minnesota Court-
-ofAPPENDIX B
Denial of
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
Joel Marvin Munt
Re-vi-e-w
by Minnesota Supreme Court
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
AUTHORITY
CASES
Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 US 482 (1947)
Sank v. Germain, 112 S.Ct. 1146 (1992)
Bond v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 180
L.Ed.2d 269 (2011)
Butz v. Economou, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978)
Carrillo v. Fabian, 701 N.W.2d 763 (Minn.
2005) (en banc)
Earl v. Fabian, 556 F.3d 717 (8th Cir. 2009)
Erickson v. Sunset Memorial Park Assn., 259
Minn. 532, 108 N.W.2d 434 (1961)
Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505
US 469 (1992)
Food and Drug Administration v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 529 US 120
(2000)
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 US 460 (1983)
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S.Ct. 681 (2009)
Jones v. Bock, 549 US 199, 127 S.Ct. 910
(2007)
Klinger v. Dept. of Corr., 107 F.3d 609 (8th
Cir. 1997)
Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 US 526,
157 L.Ed.2d 1024, 124 S.Ct. 1023 (2004)
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 278
Minn. 1, 153 N.W.2d 209 (1967)
Lexicon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998)
Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 US 189 (1971)
Minneapolis Eastern Railway Co. v. City of
Minneapolis, 247 Minn. 413, 77 N.W.2d 425
(1956)
People for Environmental Enlightenment and
Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minn.
Environmental Quality Council, 266 N.W.2d
858 (Minn. 1978)
Quam v. State, 391 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1986)
State ex rel. Canton v. Weed, 208 Minn. 342,
294 N.W. 370 (1940)
State v. Bookwalter, 541 N.W.2d 290 (Minn.
1995)
State v. C.A., 304 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 181)
State v. Fleming, 883 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2016)
Joel Marvin Munt -
PAGE NUMBER (S)
Il
8
7-8
8
9
I
8
8
7
6-7
7
8-9
8
13
9
0
-i
5
9
9
5
10
AUTHORITY
State v. Hernandez, 2001 Minn.App. LEXIS 638
(Minn.Ct.App. June 12, 2001)
State v. Humes, 581 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 1998)
State v. Leinweber, 228 N.W.2d 120 (1975)
State v. M.D.T., 831 N.W.2d 276 (Minn. 2013)
State v. Marquardt, 294 N.W.2d 849 (Minn.
1980)
State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 1999)
State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440 (1997)
U.S. v. Butler, 297 US 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80
L.Ed. 477 (1936)
U.S. v. Sandstrom, 594 F.3d 634 (8th Cir.
2010)
United States v. Goldenberg, 168 US 95 (1897)
United States v. Granderson, 511 US 39, 127
L.Ed.2d 611, 114 S.Ct. 1259 (1994)
Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 US 458 (1969)
STATUTES AND RULES
MN.Const.Art.III, sec. 1
MN.R.Crim.P. 27.03
Minn.Stat. § 590
Minn.Stat. § 609.035
Minn.Stat. § 609.04
Minn.Stat. § 611.02
Minn.Stat. § 645.08, subd. 1
Minn.Stat. § 645.16
S.Ct.R. 10
U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 9 Cl. 2
U.S. Const. Art. VI Cl. 2
U.S. Const. Art. VI Cl. 3
U.S. Const. Arnd. 1
U.S. Const. Arnd. 14
OTHER
Joel Marvin Munt
PAGE NUMBER(S)
10
8
11
5
6
9-10
6
9
9
7
7
13
3,5
11,13-4,14,15
11,15
4,6,10,13,14,17
4,10,11,13,14,
17
4,10,11,13, 14,
17
8
7
14,15,16,17
3
3
3
3
3
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment
below.
OPINIONS BELOW
[ ] For cases from federal 'courts:
The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix
to the petition and is
; or,
[ I reported at
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ I is unpublished.
The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix
the petition and is
to
; or,
[ I reported at
[ I has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ I is unpublished.
[x] For cases from state courts:
The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at
Appendix A
to the petition and is
; or,
[ I reported at
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
is unpublished.
The opinion of the
appears at Appendix
court
to the petition and is
or,
[ ] reported at
[ I has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ 11 is unpublished.
.
Joel Marvin Munt
1.
JURISDICTION
[ I For cases from federal courts:
The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was
[ ]No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
IA timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court
of Appeals on the following date:
and a copy of the
order denying rehearing appears at Appendix
,
]An extension of time to file the petition for writ of certiorari was
granted to and including
(date) on
(date) in Application No.
A
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
[x I For cases from state courts
The date on which the highest state court decided my case was
A copy of that decision appears at Appendix A
[ ]No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
/
[x IA timely petition for review was thereafter denied on the following date:
and a copy of the order denying review
appears at Appendix B
[ ]An extension of time to file the petition for writ of certiorari was
granted to and including
(date) on
(date) in Application No.
A
-
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).
Joel Marvin Munt
2.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Provision
U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 9 Cl. 2
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it.
U.S. Const. Art. VI Cl. 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof
shall be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby
...
U.S. Const. Art. VI Cl. 3
The senators and representatives, and the members of the
several state legislatures; and all executive and judicial
officers, both of the United States and the several states,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution
U.S. Const. Amd. 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
U.S. Const. Amd. 14
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.
MN.Const.Art.III, sec. 1
The powers of government shall be divided into three
distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial.
No person or persons belonging to or constituting one of
these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly
belonging to either of the others except in the instances
expressly provided in this con s titution.
Joel Marvin Munt
3.
Provision
Minn.Stat. § 609.035
if a person's conduct constitutes more than one offense under
the law of the state, the person may be punished for only one
of the offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any one of
them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them.
Minn.Stat. § 609.04
Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of
either the crime charged or an included offense, but not
both. An included offense may be any of the following:
A lesser degree of the same crime; or
An attempt to commit the crime charged; or
An attempt to commit a lesser degree of the same crime;
or
A crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were
proved; or
A petty misdemeanor necessarily proved if the
misdemeanor charge were proved.
-
A conviction or acquittal of a crime is a bar to further
prosecution of any included offense, or other degree of the
same crime.
Minn.Stat. § 611.02
Every defendant in a criminal action is presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved and, in case of a reasonable
doubt, is entitled to acquittal; and when an offense has been
proved against the defendant, and there exists a reasonable
doubt as to which of two or more degrees the defendant is
guilty, the defendant shall be convicted only of the lowest.
Joel Marvin Munt
4.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Did MN Supreme Court violate Separation of Powers?
Separation of powers protects the individual as well as the
branches. Bond v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 2358-59, 180
L.Ed.2d 269 (2011)
"The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct
departments: legislative, executive and judicial. No person or
persons belonging to or constituting one of these departments
shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either
of the others except in the instances expressly provided in
this constitution." MN.Const.Art.III-, sec. 1
Nowhere in the Minnesota Constitution does it "expressly"
provide that any Minnesota Court has the power to take on the
role of legislator by modifying laws. A court has inherent
judicial authority to engage in activities that are necessary to
the performance of judicial functions, but "the judiciary is not
to resort to inherent authority when doing so would not 'respect
the equally unique authority of' another branch of government."
State v. M.D.T., 831 N.W.2d 276, 280, 282 (Minn. 2013) (quoting
State. v. C.A., 304 N.W.2d 353, 359 (Minn. 19 r81))\ . ml.,. MI Supreme
N
Court has never permitted one branch to exercise the power
exclusively assigned to another, see Quam v. State, 391 N.W.2d
803, 809 (Minn. 1986)
-
.
The creation of criminal laws and
determining the lawful penalties for the violation of those laws
is clearly a legislative function and the MN Constitution
Joel Marvin Munt
5
contains no express provision that would permit the MN Supreme
Court to exercise this power. Further, the MN Supreme Court
lacks the authority to alter the plain, unambiguious meaning of
the Separation of Powers provision of the MN Constitution. Any
attempt to do so would be a violation itself.
At issue is the Judicially created multiple victim exception to
Minn. Stat. 609.035.
"The general rule is that if a person's conduct constitutes
more than one offense, the person may be punished for only one
of the offenses. Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (1994) This court has
carved out an exception to this multiple punishment bar when
multiple victims are involved, and has upheld multiple
sentences for multiple crimes arising from the same behavioral
incident. See State v. Sookwalter, 541 N.W.2d 290, 294 (Minn.
1995); State v. Marquardt, 294 N.W.2d 849, 850 (Minn. 1980).
In Marquardt, this court stated the rule that one sentence may
be imposed per victim in multiple-victim cases as long as the
multiple sentences "do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality
of the defendant's conduct." 294 N.W.2d at 851." State v.
Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440, 453 (1997) (emphasis added)
.
Seeming to have realized that facially they violated the
constitution, the MN Supreme Court tried to say what they were
really doing was just interpreting their statute, but creating
such an exception goes beyond that.
The statute is explicit about the exceptions to this
restriction, none of which apply to Defendant and none include
an exception for multiple victims. "When statute lists specific
exemptions, other exemptions are not to be judicially implied."
Joe! Marvin Munt
6.
Klinger v. Dept. of Corr., 107 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 1997)
.
See
also Jones v. Bock, 549 US 199, 127 S.Ct. 910 (2007) ("[T]he
judge's job is to construe the statute
-
not to make it better"
The judge "must no read in by way of creation" but instead abide
by the "duty of restraint, th[e] humility of function as merely
the translator of another's command." "No mere omission ... which
may seem wise to have specifically provided for, justif[ies] any
judicial addition to the language of the statute" at 921
(quoting United States v. Goldenberg, 168 US 95 (1897)).
"If [the legislature] enacted into law something different
from what it intended, then it should amend the •statute to
conform to its intent. 'It is beyond our province to
rescue [the legislature] from its drafting errors, and to
provide what we might think ... is the preferred result.'
United States v. Granderson, 511 US 39, 68, 127 L.Ed.2d
611, 114 S.Ct. 1259 (1994) (concurring opinion)
This
allows both of our branches to adhere to our respected, and
respective, constitutional roles." Lamie v. United States
Trustee, 540 US 526, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024, 124 S.Ct. 1023
(2004) at 1038-9.
.
If a "statute requires expansion, that is the job of [the
legislature]
."
Food and Drug Administration v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation, 529 US 120 (2000). "It is not
for us to speculate, much less act, on whether [the legislature].
would have altered its stance had the specific events of this
case been anticipated" Id at 147 (citation omitted)
When the meaning of statutory language is clear, that
meaning governs application of the statute. Minn.Stat. §
645.16. Then "further construction is neither necessary nor
Joel Marvin Munt
-
7.
permitted." Carrillo v. Fabian, 701 N.W.2d 763, 777 (Minn.
2005) (en banc), and the "court must enforce it according to its
terms." Earl v. Fabian, 556 F.3d 717, 719 (8th Cir. 2009)
.
See
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 129 S.Ct. 681 (2009); Bank v. Germain,
112 S.Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992)
Words and phrases should be construed according to the
rules of grammar and according to their common meanings.
Minn.Stat. § 645.08, subd. 1.
"Shall", "will", and "must" are all words "of an
unmistakably mandatory character, requiring that certain
procedures shall, will, or must be employed" (internal quotes
omitted)
.
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 US 460, 471-2 (1983)
.
The
mandatoy "shll" normally creates "an obligation impervious to
judicial discretion". Lexicon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach, 140 L.Ed.2d 62, 64 (1998) (see Anderson v.
Yungkau, 329 US 482, 485 (1947)); State v. Humes, 581 N.W.2d
317, 319 (Minn. 1998)
.
command of the Statute.
The Court must give effect to the plain
Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling
Co., 505 US 469, 476 (1992). "All officers of the government,
from the highest to the lowest, are creatures, of the law, and
are bound to obey it.," Butz v. Economou, 5.7 L.Ed.2d 895, 897
(1978)
"This conclusion is consistent with the general policy of
statutory construction followed by this court of
Joel Marvin Munt
8.
harmonizing statutes dealing with the same subject matter.
Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed District, 278 Minn. 1, 11, 153
N.W.2d 209, 217 (1967); State ex rel. Canton v. Weed, 208
Minn. 342, 344, 294 N.W. 370, 371 (1940) We also presume
that, in enacting a statute, the legislature acted with
full knowledge of prior legislation on the same subject.
Erickson v. Sunset Memorial Park Assn., 259 Minn. 532, 543,
108 N.W.2d 434, 441 (1961); Minneapolis Eastern Railway Co.
v. City of Minneapolis, 247 Minn. 413, 418, 77 N.W.2d 425,
428 (1956)." People for Environmental Enlightenment and
Responsibility (PEER), Inc. v. Minn. Environmental Quality
Council, 266 N.W.2d 858, 866 (Minn. 1978)
.
Nothing in the plain text of the law could lead anyone to
believe that it contains an exception for multiple victims.
The MN Supreme Court clearly violated 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?
"The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ordained and
established by the people. All legislation must conform to
the principles it lays down. When an act or Congress is
appropriately challenged in the courts as not conforming to
the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the
government has only one duty; to lay the article of the
Constitution which is invokes beside the statute which is
challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the
former." U.S. v. Butler, 297 US 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 318, 80
L.Ed. 477 (1936)
The Courts have ruled that Double Jeopardy is only violated
in a single proceeding when multiple punishments are imposed for
the same crime contrary to the legislature's intent.
Sandstrom, 594 F.3d 634 (8th Cir. 2010)
.
U.S. V.
"The legislature is
vested with the power to prescribe punishment for criminal acts
Joel Marvin Mont
9.
and limits prescribed by the legislature." State v. Pflepsen,
590 N.W.2d 759, 764 (Minn. 1999). The Minnesota legislature's
intent is stated clearly 609.035, 609.04 and 611.02.
"we need not rely on our case law when a-controlling
statute resolves the issue before us" State v. Fleming, 883
N.W.2d 790, 798 n. 6 (Minn. 2016).
Petitioner was convicted on four counts of 1st degree
murder, and the included charges of 2nd degree intentional
murder, kidnapping, and drive by shooting. Minn.Stat. 609.04
prohibits a Defendant from being convicted of both an offense
and an included offense. It further goes on to define what
constitutes an included offense. Minn.Stat. 611.02 prohibits
being convicted of an offense and a lesser degree, and if you
are convicted of both then only the lesser can stand.
It is for the jury, not the Court to make a finding of
guilt. If they convict of multiple degrees in violation of the
law then clearly there was doubt in their minds about which the
defendant was guilty of.
In State v. Hernandez, 2001 Minn.App. LEXIS 638
(Minn.Ct.App. June 12, 2001) a defendant who was convicted, of
2nd and 4th degree controlled substance charges had his 2nd
degree conviction reversed and the case was remanded to the
district court for sentencing on the 4th degree charge, pursuant
to Minn.Stat. § 611.02.
Joel Marvin Munt
10.
In State v. Leinweber, 228 N.W.2d 120 (1975) the Court
clearly construed Minn.Stat. § 611.02 to extend to all lesser
included offenses. Thus any violation of 609.04 must be
resolved (per 611.02) by vacating all but the lowest conviction.
At minimum this would mean second degree murder rather than
1st degree, which would give Petitioner an out date. Statutory
construction says even more relief is due.
It does not seem disputed that Minn.Stat. 609.04 and 611.02
were violated in Plaintiff's case, thus violating Double
Jeopardy. The MN Supreme Court's argument is that because
Plaintiff did not know to raise this on direct appeal and
because the DCC prevented him from doing so post-conviction that
the law is unenforceable. Can then the Constitution still be
said to be the supreme law? Is it justice to allow a Defendant
to serve a life sentence when the state's law clearly says the
conviction and thus the sentence is illegal?
The Constitution is the Supreme Law. As a method of
enforcing the Supreme Law the Constitution provides the
privilege of habeas corpus and right to petition.
The US
Supreme Court's favorable termination doctrine means that
constitutional violations that would invalidate a conviction
Joel Marvin Munt
11.
must be resolved in habeas proceedings before you can exercise
your right to petition. The Federal Government has suspended
the right to habeas corpus after the 1st provision (despite that
the Constitution explicitly says it can only be suspended for
invasion or insurrection), thus leaving many violations of the
Constitution without any federal review.
The MN Supreme Court interprets 27.03 Motions and 590
Petitions in such a way as to permit violation of the
Constitution and law and to do grave injustices to those
unfortunate enough to not be legal wizes on their direct
appeals. If allowed to stand a Defendant whose convictions
facially violate these statutes and double jeopardy has no
remedy in state or federal court! It further permits the State
to ensure that you are unable to file them on direct appeal or
post-conviction petition, as the State did to Plaintiff.
Basically, can I be condemned to life without the
possibility of parole in violation of the law solely because I
did not know to raise these arguments earlier? These are not
things were any facts can be disputed. They are purely matters
of law.
Joel Marvin Munt
12.
Did MN Supreme Court's violation of rules of statutory
construction render their effort to save their judicially
created exception unavailing?
I'm not sure what to do here. The complete argument for
this question is by necessity included in l. The MN Supreme
-
Court argued that rather than violating separation of powers (as
they themselves implicitly said they were doing) they were only
doing construction. In #1 I demonstrated that they violated the
rules of statutory construction, thus their judicially created
exception cannot be justified as merely a product of
construction. It ignores the plain meaning of the words, has no
basis in the words of the law, and ignores the principle that if
the legislature added explicit exceptions it is not for the
court to create its own.
Did MN Supreme Court draw an unreasoned distinction between
Minn.Stat. § 609.035, 609.04 and 611.02.
Unreasoned distinctions between statutes are immaterial. See
Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 US 189 (1971); Williams v. Oklahoma
City, 395 US 458 (1969)
In this case the MN Supreme Court said that it could hear the
argument based on Minn.Stat. 609.035 because it only affected
sentence, but could not hear arguments based on 609.04 or 611.02
because they affect convictions. There is nothing in the text of
these laws to support drawing this distinction. All three are bars to
multiple convictions.
Joel Marvin Munt
Further, nothing in 27.03 even says it cannot
13.
grant relief if a conviction would be vacated, only that it is to
correct a sentence unauthorized by law, which clearly applies to
Plaintiff's sentence (at minimum under 611.02)
.
What then justifies
the difference in treatment? And since 609.035 prohibits multiple
convictions, yet can be resolved in a 27.03 motion, why can't 609.04
and 611.02 violations?
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
S.Ct.R. 10 states a non-exhaustive list of reasons for which review
may be granted. This list includes:
has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court,
state court of last resort decided a federal issue contrary to
another state court of last resort or a US Circuit Court,
state court decided a federal question [1] that has not been, but
should be settled by this Court, or [2] in a way that conflicts
with relevant decisions of this court.
It further states the list is "neither controlling nor fully
measur[es] the Court's discretion". I would argue that any time the
Federal Constitution has been violated this Court has a duty to see
that violation is redressed and in fact that upholding the
Constitution is the primary duty of this Court.
1. Did MN Supreme Court violate Separation of Powers?
The prisons of this Minnesota contain thousands of inmates.
These three statutes have been violated for the majority of them and
they are denied correction to their sentences to make them comply with
the law solely because they are not experts at criminal law.
The MN Supreme Court was accurate when it described its action as
a judicially created exception. That when called on for the violation
they try to lamely justify it as statutory construction fails on its
face.
Joel Marvin Mont
14.
I have no idea what actually draws the justices of this court to
a question. A great many violations of the Constitution seem to be
allowed to go uncorrected solely due to procedural issues with no
thought to if the Constitution was violated. Here the too court in
the state violated the constitution and inmates are paying the price
of it.
Important question upon which Supreme Court should rule. See
S.Ct.R. 1O(a)+(b)+(c).
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?
The prisons of this Minnesota contain thousands of inmates. Many
of these inmates are denied relief from their convictions and
sentences not due to the lack of merits in their arguments but due to
the time and procedural bars the State imposes, punishing them for not
being attorneys. This places violations of these rules above
violations of the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to protect
the people from the government. Is it so easy for the government to
insulate itself from the Constitution?
These three statutes have been violated for the majority of MN
inmates, including the Petitioner, and they are denied correction to
their sentences to make them comply with the law solely because they
are not experts at criminal law. This means the difference between an
outdate and life in prison for Plaintiff. Had he known to raise this
on direct appeal and known how to raise it he would not now be serving
Joel Marvin Murit
15.
a life sentence (as you can see this is a simple matter of law,
without disputed facts)
The MN Supreme Court was accurate when it described its action as
a judicially created exception. That when called on for the violation
they try to lamely justify it as statutory construction fails on its
face.
I have no idea what actually draws the justices of this court to
a question. A great many violations of the Constitution seem to be
allowed to go uncorrected solely due to procedural issues with no
thought to if the Constitution was violated. Here the too court in
the state violated the constitution and inmates are paying the price
of it.
Important question upon which Supreme Court should rule. See
S.Ct.R. 1O(a)+(b)+(c).
3. Did MN Supreme Court's violation of rules of statutory
construction render their effort to save their judicially
created exception unavailing?
The MN Supreme Court was accurate when it described its action as
a judicially created exception. That when attention was called to the
violation they tried to lamely justify it as statutory construction.
Since they did not actually follow rules of statutory construction and
the exception is clearly adding to the statute (in a way that goes
against its clear text), it clearly was exactly as they originally'
described it.
I have no idea what actually draws the justices of this court to
a. question. A great many violations of the Constitution seem to be
Joel Marvin Munt
16.
1
allowed to go uncorrected solely due to procedural issues with no
thought to if the Constitution was violated. Here the too court in
the state violated the constitution and inmates are paying the price
of it.
Important question upon which Supreme Court should rule. See
S.Ct.R. 1O(a)+(b)+(c)
4. Did MN Supreme Court draw an unreasoned distinction between
Minn.Stat. § 609.035, 609.04 and 611.02.
The Minnesota Legislature used these three statutes to put
limitations on when multiple convictions are permissible, or to put
differently, defined when they are impermissible. The same type of
resolutions naturally exist for them both. Yet the MN Supreme Court
draws a distinction that allows sentences that are illegal under one
to be corrected at any time, but not those that are illegal under the
other two. There is no basis for the Court to permit violations of
double jeopardy to go unremedied on this basis.
I have no idea what actually draws the justices of this court to
a question. A great many violations of the Constitution seem to be
allowed to go uncorrected solely due to procedural issues with no
thought to if the Constitution was violated. Here the too court in
the state violated the constitution and inmates are paying the price
of it.
Important question upon which Supreme Court should rule. See
S.Ct.R. 1O(a)+(b)+(c).
Joel Marvin Munt
17.
CONCLUSION
The State knows its laws. It willfully violates the three at
issue in this petition in almost every criminal case. Judges,
prosecutors, and attorneys are allowing these violations to
occur. Yet only the inmates who are lucky enough to find a
competent jailhouse attorney in time for their direct appeal or
1st post-conviction petition get relief. This is an injustice
on a state-wide scale. I plead with this court's sense of
justice and duty to the Constitution to look at this Petition.
Further information on the legal arguments involved can be
provided if the Court desires.
The important issues in this petition deserve review by the
Supreme Court.
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Joel Marvin Munt
Date:
Joel Marvin Munt
i/3/Zo(9
18.
A Pp&7JEJ
PPivtz',c
el
OCJn of
Co-4
-
fc
neiofQ <pr-en'e
y i14€Ji
6
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.