Clinton Angwenyi Omuya, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-1481

Clinton Angwenyi Omuya, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed May 18, 2026
Reversed and remanded
Johnson, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-18-22419

Anders J. Erickson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Nicholas G. Kimball, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larson,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
In 2020, Clinton Angwenyi Omuya was convicted of aiding and abetting second-
degree unintentional murder. In 2025, Omuya filed a preliminary application for
permission to file a petition to vacate his conviction. A reviewing judge denied the
2
preliminary application. We conclude that the reviewing judge erred by denying the
preliminary application without considering whether Omuya acted with extreme
indifference to human life. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to
determine whether Omuya acted with extreme indifference to human life and then
determine whether there is a reasonable probability that Omuya is entitled to relief.
FACTS
In September 2018, the state charged Omuya with aiding and abetting second-
degree intentional murder, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2016), and
aiding an offender as an accomplice after the fact, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.495,
subd. 3 (2016).
In February 2019, Omuya pleaded guilty to an amended charge of aiding and
abetting second-degree unintentional murder, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.19,
subd. 2(1). At the plea hearing, Omuya admitted that he gave a handgun to a minor, A.K.,
who used the handgun to shoot and kill another person, D.D. Omuya stated during the plea
hearing that he told A.K. to confront D.D. and to use the handgun to pistol-whip D.D. if
the confrontation escalated but that he warned A.K. not to do “anything stupid” or shoot
anyone. In February 2020, the district court imposed a sentence of 180 months of
imprisonment. Omuya appealed his sentence, and this court affirmed. State v. Omuya, No.
A20-0652, 2021 WL 1604349 (Minn. App. Apr. 26, 2021), rev. denied (Minn. June 29,
2021).
In April 2025, Omuya filed a preliminary application for relief pursuant to an
uncodified law enacted on May 19, 2023 (hereinafter the Act), which provides a means of
3
obtaining relief from aiding-and-abetting felony-murder convictions under certain
circumstances. See 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, at 864-68. Omuya alleges that
he is entitled to relief under the Act on the grounds that he did not cause D.D.’s death and
did not act with extreme indifference to human life. In July 2025, the assigned judge denied
the application on the ground that Omuya was a major participant in the underlying felony.
Omuya appeals.
DECISION
Omuya argues that the district court erred by denying his preliminary application
based solely on a determination that he was a major participant in the underlying felony ,
without determining whether he acted with extreme indifference to human life.
A.
In 2023, the legislature amended the statute governing accomplice liability for first-
degree and second-degree felony murder. 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 4, § 3, at 850-51
(codified at Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subd. 2a (Supp. 2023)). The amended statute provides
that a person may not be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting felony murder in
certain circumstances. Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subd. 2a(a)-(b) (Supp. 2023). Specifically, a
person may not be convicted of second-degree felony murder for a death caused by another
“unless the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with extreme
indifference to human life.” Id., subd. 2a(b).
The legislature also enacted an uncodified law providing that a person previously
convicted of aiding and abetting felony murder may seek to have his or her conviction
vacated. 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, at 864-68. A person previously convicted
4
of aiding and abetting second-degree felony murder is entitled to relief if the person “shows
by a preponderance of the evidence” that he or she “(1) did not cause the death of a human
being” and “(2) was not a major participant in the underlying felony or did not act with
extreme indifference to human life.” 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123, art. 4, § 20, subd. 7(b), at
2269 (amending 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, subd. 7(b), at 867-68).
Before a person may petition for relief from a conviction of aiding and abetting
felony murder, the person must file a preliminary application. 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52,
art. 4, § 24, subd. 4, at 865. The preliminary application must include, among other things,
a brief statement explaining why the applicant is entitled to relief. Id., § 24, subd. 4(a)(6),
at 865. The preliminary application must be assigned to a reviewing judge, who must
determine, in the judge’s discretion, whether the applicant has shown a reasonable
probability of an entitlement to relief. Id., § 24, subd. 5(a), (c), at 865. In making this
determination, the reviewing judge must consider the preliminary application and any
attachments. Id., § 24, subd. 5(d), at 866. The reviewing judge also may consider “relevant
records in the possession of the judicial branch.” Id. If the reviewing judge denies the
preliminary application, the judge must provide a brief statement explaining the reasons
why there is not a reasonable probability that the applicant is entitled to relief. Id., § 24,
subd. 5(h), at 866.
A reviewing judge’s denial of a preliminary application is an appealable order. State
v. Griffin, 20 N.W.3d 57, 60 (Minn. 2025) (order); Raisch v. State, 8 N.W.3d 237, 238, 241
(Minn. App. 2024). This court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a
5
reviewing judge’s denial of a preliminary application under the Act. State v. Griffin, 24
N.W.3d 247, 254 (Minn. 2025).
B.
Omuya argues that the reviewing judge erred by not considering a criterion relevant
to whether he is entitled to relief under the Act: whether he acted with extreme indifference
to human life. The state agrees. Omuya may be entitled to relief if he can prove that he
either “was not a major participant in the underlying felony or did not act with extreme
indifference to human life.” 2024 Minn. Laws ch. 123, art. 4, § 20, subd. 7(b)(2), at 2269
(emphasis added) (amending 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 4, § 24, subd. 7(b)(2), at 867-
68). Omuya invoked only the latter alternative by alleging in his preliminary application
that he did not act with extreme indifference to human life. But the reviewing judge’s
written order omits any mention of whether Omuya acted with extreme indifference to
human life. Instead, the reviewing judge denied Omuya’s preliminary application by
determining that he was a major participant in the underlying felony. But Omuya does not
allege that he was not a major participant in the underlying felony. The parties are correct
that the reviewing judge erred by not considering whether Omuya acted with extreme
indifference to human life.
The parties disagree about the appropriate disposition of the appeal. Omuya
requests that this court remand with instructions that he be allowed to file a petition to
vacate his conviction. The state argues that this court should affirm on the ground that the
record “conclusively shows” that Omuya acted with extreme indifference to human life.
The state argues in the alternative that, if this court were to reverse and remand, we should
6
instruct the reviewing judge to consider whether Omuya acted with extreme indifference
to human life, rather than allow Omuya to file a petition to vacate without any
determination of whether he acted with extreme indifference to human life.
Omuya is not entitled to relief under the Act unless he can prove that he did not act
with extreme indifference to human life. See id. The Act expressly provides that “the
reviewing judge shall determine whether, in the discretion of that judge, there is a
reasonable probability that the application is entitled to relief.” 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52,
art. 4, § 24, subd. 5(c), at 865 (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is necessary for the
reviewing judge to determine in the first instance whether Omuya acted with extreme
indifference to human life. The reviewing judge must make that determination before
determining whether there is a reasonable probability that Omuya is entitled to relief. See
Raisch, 8 N.W.3d at 240 (explaining that “petition to vacate can be filed only if the district
court makes an affirmative determination on the preliminary application”).
In sum, the reviewing judge erred by denying the preliminary application based
solely on a determination that Omuya was a major participant in the underlying felony,
without determining whether Omuya acted with extreme indifference to human life.
Therefore, we reverse and remand to the reviewing judge with instructions to determine
whether Omuya acted with extreme indifference to human life and then determine whether
there is a reasonable probability that Omuya is entitled to relief under the Act.
Reversed and remanded.