DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • Hoagland v. State 518 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1994
  • Hoagland v. State 518 N.W.2d 531 Minn. 1994
    This court has made it clear that “a convicted defendant is entitled to at least one right of review by an appellate or postconviction court.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Miles v. State 512 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Miles v. State 512 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (quoting State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , ).
  • State v. Rainer 502 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Rainer 502 N.W.2d 784 Minn. 1993
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Johnson v. State 486 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Johnson v. State 486 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 251-52 , -41 (1976) (convicted defendant is entitled to one state corrective process and may not raise in postconviction, claims raised on direct appeal); IV ABA Standards on Criminal Justice, § 22-1.2 (postconviction proceeding is separate from, but an extension of, the original proceeding).
  • Fox v. State 474 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1991
  • Fox v. State 474 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1991
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 251-52 , -41 (1976) (post-conviction relief allowed regarding known matter where there had been no direct appeal).
  • Harris v. State 470 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Harris v. State 470 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    In denying a hearing, the trial court relied on State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , which held that when a direct appeal has been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not thereafter be considered upon a postconviction petition.
  • Tauer v. State 451 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • Tauer v. State 451 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , Minn.Stat.
  • Fratzke v. State 450 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1990
  • Fratzke v. State 450 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1990
    Moreover, this court has consistently indicated 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 , (only where a claim is so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time direct appeal was taken and decided will postconviction relief be allowed).
  • Dent v. State 441 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1989
  • Dent v. State 441 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 1989
    This court has determined 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
  • State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Overruled State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    We note Tyson was subsequently overruled by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Bolstad v. State 435 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Bolstad v. State 435 N.W.2d 547 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 251 , -41 (1976).
  • State v. Saliterman 431 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Saliterman 431 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Sanders v. State 400 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Sanders v. State 400 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Morgan, d at 459-60 ; State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    It based its refusal on State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , and stated: [Walker’s] first contention is that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him of any of the crimes for which he was sentenced.
  • Pladson v. State 385 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Pladson v. State 385 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The supreme court in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , held that all claims known but not raised on direct appeal will not be considered on a petition for post-conviction relief.
  • Morgan v. State 384 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1986
  • Morgan v. State 384 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1986
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • State v. Kloskowski 378 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Kloskowski 378 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Kost v. State 356 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1984
  • Kost v. State 356 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1984
    In State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , we stated, in part, 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 post-conviction relief.” we indicated that t
  • McDonald v. State 351 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • McDonald v. State 351 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Case v. State 344 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Case v. State 344 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Wensman v. State 342 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1984
  • Wensman v. State 342 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1984
    This holding is contrary to our decision in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • Shaw v. State 335 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1983
  • Shaw v. State 335 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 1983
    (holding that petitioner in posteonviction proceeding may not raise matter that he raised and which was decided against him on direct appeal); (affirming a dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus seeking to relitigate issues decided against petitioner in a previous habeas corpus proceeding); State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , (holding in part that a convicted defendant is not entitled to raise in a posteonviction proceeding any matter which he raised on direct appeal or which he knew about but
  • State v. Wallace 330 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Wallace 330 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1983
    We indicated in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , that a criminal defendant is entitled to at least one right of review by an appellate court, and we believe that that applies even to misdemeanor convictions.
  • Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
  • Bangert v. State 282 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 1979
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
  • State v. Myers 273 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Myers 273 N.W.2d 656 Minn. 1978
    The key case to see is State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246