Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737.

850 citing documents.

Barnslater v. State 805 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Barnslater v. State 805 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Under Knaffla, when a “direct appeal” has been taken, “all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
As such, the court concluded that our rule from State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , barred Johnson from raising claims that were not raised in, but “that should have been known” at the time of, his first petition for postconviction relief.
Larson v. State 801 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Larson v. State 801 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The supreme court has more recently emphasized it has not reached the issue of whether the Minnesota Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to one review of a criminal conviction, recognizing that the postconviction statute and the holding in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , already provide such a right.
State v. Dalbec 800 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 2011
State v. Dalbec 800 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 2011
The State asks that we rule on its claim that Dalbec cannot meet the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel and that any assertions of ineffectiveness under Strickland would be barred in a postconviction proceeding under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
Because we conclude that Buckingham’s claims are procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , we affirm.
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
Riley v. State 792 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2011
Riley v. State 792 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2011
The postconviction court concluded that Riley’s claims were barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
1 The postconviction court denied this claim as proeedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , and, in the alternative, denied the claim as lacking factual support.
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
We affirmed the postconviction court’s decision on the basis that Sanders’ claims were barred by the rule set forth in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , and Sanders did not demonstrate why fairness required consideration of his arguments.
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
But the State argues that the *725 court correctly ruled that two of Dobbins’s claims — his equal protection claim and his claim that he was improperly convicted of aiding and abetting — are procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
Evans v. State 788 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 2010
3 *44 In State v. Knaffla, we stated, “where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for post-conviction relief.” 309 Minn. 246, 252
Laine v. State 786 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2010
Laine v. State 786 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 2010
(quoting State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , ); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd.
Davis v. State 784 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2010
Davis v. State 784 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2010
1(2) (2008), provides that “[a] petition for postconviction relief after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction or sentence.” That rule was established in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , and later incorporated by the Legislature into the postconviction statute.
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
Hannon v. State 781 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 2010
Hannon v. State 781 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 2010
We affirmed Hannon’s conviction, concluding that six of Hannon’s claims were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , , (1976), and that Hannon’s in *890 effective-assistance-of-counsel claim was meritless.
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
Leake, d at 535 (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , ).
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In the alternative, the district court analyzed Chang’s arguments for posteonviction relief and concluded that most of the arguments are procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , and that all of the arguments are without merit.
Moua v. State 778 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2010
Moua v. State 778 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2010
The postconviction court held that because the legal basis for all of the issues Moua raises was available at the time of his direct appeal, State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , barred the petition.
Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
Walen v. State 777 N.W.2d 213 Minn. 2010
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
In State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , we stated that "where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” .
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
309 Minn. 246, 252 , see also Leake, d at 535 .
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Chambers v. State 769 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2009
Chambers v. State 769 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2009
In State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , we held that if a direct appeal has been taken on a conviction, all claims raised in that appeal and all claims known at the time but not raised are procedurally barred in a subsequent petition for post-conviction relief.
Barnes v. State 768 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Barnes v. State 768 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Barnes’ argument is based on the Minnesota Constitution and the rationale we articulated in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , and Deegan, .
Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
Townsend v. State 767 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2009
Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
at 534-35, 540 ; see State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252