Cited by

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

850 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
C.f. State v. Knaffla , 309 Minn. 246, 252, (barring appellants from raising issues in a postconviction petition that were already raised on appeal).
Kevin Terrance Hannon v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2017
Kevin Terrance Hannon v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2017
See State v. 3 Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, (“[W]here 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.”).
Freddie James Prewitt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Freddie James Prewitt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Swaney, d at 214 (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, ).
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, (discussing procedural bars to postconviction claims on appeal).
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The postconviction court denied the petition on the grounds that it was procedurally barred pursuant to State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, and because no legal basis existed for relief.
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
im of entitlement to default judgment Green asserts that the district court erred by not granting him default judgment, arguing that the court was required to grant him default judgment because it did not issue its postconviction order within the “legal limit for review legally set at 90 days.” To support his argument, Green cites Minn. Stat. § 590.01−.02 (2014) and State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joseph Fellman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joseph Fellman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
It also has a substantive condition in that, after a direct appeal, “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, (extending the Knaffla restriction to also bar claims that were known or raised in a previous postconviction petition).
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[W]here 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
Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
With respect to Gail’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, the court applied the procedural bar from State v. Knaffla, based on its finding that the claim was “identical or substantially similar to the claim[] Gail pursued on direct appeal.” Gail II, d at 246 (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , (“[W]here 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 of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Howard Bartz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant also contends that the district court erred by determining that the jury’s guilty verdicts of second-degree intentional murder and criminal vehicular homicide are legally consistent and that all of his claims are procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
John Howard Bartz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant appealed, and this court affirmed, concluding that all but one of appellant’s claims were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, and that the remaining claim was without merit.
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, (“[W]here 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.”).
Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
4 (2014), and his previously raised claims as procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Enamidem Celestine Okon v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because Brown’s petition is barred as untimely and repetitive under Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4 (2014), and State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, we affirm.
Enamidem Celestine Okon v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Because Okon’s constitutional claim was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal, Okon’s claim is barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
LaQuinn Jamul Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
LaQuinn Jamul Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
Kim Thul Ouk v. State of Minnesota 884 N.W.2d 392 Minn. 2016
After construing Ouk’s motion as a petition for postconviction relief, the postconviction court summarily denied the petition as procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Derrick Delmar Brocks v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2016
Derrick Delmar Brocks v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2016
The court also held, in the alternative, that our rule in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, and its recent statutory counterparts, Minn. Stat. §§ 590.01, subds.
Dwayne Lee Wright v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Dwayne Lee Wright v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Id.; State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
o object to the admission of K.G.’s out-of-court statement and (2) his convictions violate section 609.035 and the Double Jeopardy Clauses, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise those alleged violations.3 Before turning to the merits, however, we address the State’s assertion that petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred by the rule announced in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 253
MicLeonard James Fisherman, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
MicLeonard James Fisherman, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2016
Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2016
1 (2014), and our decision in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4, and procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
Colbert, d at 626; see also State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Ta-Raj Tondell Satari Benness v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016