DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

850 citing documents.

  • Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Brown v. State 746 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 2008
  • Brown v. State 746 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 2008
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Blom v. State 744 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2007
  • Blom v. State 744 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 2007
    Id.; *18 State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007
  • Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007
    Once a direct appeal has been taken from a conviction, “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
  • Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
  • Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Leake v. State 739 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2007
  • Leake v. State 739 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2007
    He argues that because this issue was raised in his direct appeal, it is not barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
    We have consistently recognized that when a direct appeal has been taken, all matters raised and all matters that could have been raised in the appeal “will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
  • Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
    309 Minn. 246, 252 , (holding that all claims raised by a defendant on direct appeal and all claims known but not raised at the time of that appeal are barred from review in a subsequent petition for postconviction relief); see also Schleicher, d at 447 (recognizing that the Knaffla ru
  • Buggs v. State 734 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
  • Buggs v. State 734 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
  • Fields v. State 733 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2007
  • Fields v. State 733 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2007
    The post-conviction court concluded that Fields’ which reaffirmed our rule in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
  • Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
    The postconviction court concluded that claims (1), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (11), and (12) are identical or substantially similar to the claims Gail pursued on direct appeal and that therefore they were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
  • Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
    The district court concluded that Powers’ sentences did not violate his constitutional rights, and we affirmed, concluding the argument was barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007
  • Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007
    The post-conviction court denied Perry’s petition as procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
  • Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
  • Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , , 741 (Minn.1976).
  • Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
    We have said 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. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
  • Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
    Instead, on September 6, 2000, he filed pro se his first petition for postconviction relief, raising a claim under Apprendi The district court denied the petition and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that Spears’s Apprendi claim was barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , because Spears did not challenge his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds in his direct appeal.
  • Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
  • Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
    “[Wlhere 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 postconvietion relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
    Once 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 , *447 (1976) (“Knaffla rule”).
  • Lee v. State 717 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 2006
  • Lee v. State 717 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 2006
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , (When a direct appeal has once been taken by a convicted defendant, “all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for post-conviction relief.”).
  • Stiles v. State 716 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2006
  • Stiles v. State 716 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2006
    Additionally, in State v. Knaffla we said that “where direct appeal has once been taken, all mat *329 ters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
  • Pierson v. State 715 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 2006
    When a direct appeal has been taken by a convicted defendant, “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
  • Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
  • Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
  • Deegan v. State 711 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2006
  • White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
  • White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , (“Knaffla rule”).
  • Deegan v. State 711 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2006
    Nine years later, we noted that the Postconviction Remedy Act was enacted “as a legislative response to the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Case v. Nebraska.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 251
  • Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
    As a general rule, once 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
  • McDonough v. State 707 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 2006