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.

  • McDonough v. State 707 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 2006
    “Additionally, 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 post-conviction relief.’ ” McDonough II, d at 55 (quoting State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , ) (Knaffla rule).
  • McKenzie v. State 707 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2005
  • McKenzie v. State 707 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2005
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , (holding that once a direct appeal has been taken, all matters raised in the direct appeal, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered in postconviction petitions).
  • Voorhees v. State 706 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2005
  • Voorhees v. State 706 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2005
    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.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Perry v. State 705 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2005
  • Perry v. State 705 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2005
    The postconviction court denied appellant’s petition on the grounds that the claim was procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , (“Knaffla rule”) and failed on the merits even if not barred.
  • Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
  • Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
    *491 Although a convicted defendant does not have a constitutional right to appeal under either the United States Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution, we have determined in Minnesota that “a convicted defendant is entitled to at least one right of review by an appellate or postconviction court.” 2 (quoting State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , ); see also Minn. R.Crim.
  • Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
  • Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
    The postconviction court summarily denied Azure’s petition for relief on the grounds that the claims raised in the *445 petition were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
  • Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
    Further, “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
  • State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Martin 695 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2005
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
  • Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
    The postconviction court denied the petition, without a hearing, holding that all of Powers’ arguments were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
  • Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
  • Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
    (-25 (Minn.1996)); State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 253-54 , -42 (1976).
  • Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
    The postconviction court summarily denied Carney’s petition on the ground that his claims were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
    As to the remaining two claims, we have held that 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
  • Quick v. State 692 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 2005
  • Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
  • Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
    (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , ).
  • Quick v. State 692 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 2005
    Further, in State v. Knaffla, we held that 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 posteonvietion relief.” 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
  • Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Taylor v. State 691 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2005
  • Taylor v. State 691 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2005
    Further, this court held in State v. Knaffla that 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.” 309 Minn. 246, 252 , (“Knaffla rule”).
  • A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
  • A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
    However, the state argues that Ford *711 should have raised the issue on direct appeal and that the claim is precluded under our decision in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , (“Knaffla rule”).
  • Koskela v. State 690 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 2004
  • Koskela v. State 690 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Houston 689 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , once a direct appeal has been taken, all matters raised in it, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered in postconviction proceedings.
  • Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
  • Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
    The first postconviction court summarily denied Zenanko’s first petition, concluding that his claims of prosecutorial misconduct, nondisclosure of evidence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, improper sentencing, and improper jury instructions were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , and the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim was “without merit.” Zenanko II, d at 645 .
  • Powers v. State 688 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 2004
  • Powers v. State 688 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 2004
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
  • Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
    Thus Torres’ claim does not fall within any exception to the procedural bar of State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , and we affirm the denial of his petition.
  • Spann v. State 686 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Washington v. State 675 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2004
  • Washington v. State 675 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2004