Cited by

Finally, Benness’s claim is barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, d 737 (1976).

see also State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252

We have recognized that a postconviction court may summarily deny a claim that is untimely under the postconviction statute or procedurally barred under our decision in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246

________________________ SYLLABUS The appellant’s claims are procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246

State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252

See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, (providing that all matters raised or known and not raised at the time of direct appeal will not be considered in a subsequent matter).

3 If a “‘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.’” (quoting State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, ).

The district court denied the petition without a hearing, concluding that his claims of ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, and that 3 they also lacked merit.

The 3 postconviction court concluded that appellant’s claim was procedurally barred by the rule in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, because he did not raise the issue in his motion to correct his sentence.

Strother uses these arguments to support his contention that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, asserting that trial counsel should have elicited additional evidence before and during trial and should have challenged the jury 1 State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246

“[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, see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

The court then concluded that our holding in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, barred Johnson’s claims.

“To be reviewed in the interests of 1 “[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

This court concluded that Jones’s claims were either not supported by the record or were barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, because the claims were known, but not raised, at the time of Jones’s direct appeal.

The postconviction court summarily denied relief, concluding that all of Downing’s claims are procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246

This court affirmed, holding 2 that Carlson’s claims were either time-barred or barred by operation of the rule in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252

A petition for postconviction relief must generally be filed within 1 See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246

The district court denied Green’s motions on various grounds, noting that the claims brought by Green were barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, and Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.

Similarly, no hearing is required if the claim is barred by this court’s decision in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246

In January 2014, the district court denied appellant’s petition for postconviction relief without a hearing, concluding that some of his claims were barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, and that his other arguments lacked merit.

The district court concluded that appellant’s claim was barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, because “the issues regarding the [SPPDCL] were known at the time of her direct appeal, and [appellant] failed to request a stay of her appeal in order to pursue post-conviction claims based upon those issues .

“[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

See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, d 737 (1976).

State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252

§ 590.01, subd, 4(b)(2) (requiring that newly discovered evidence be "not cumulative to evidence presented at trial"); (providing that if a claim was “raised,” "known,” or "should have been known” on direct appeal, that claim "will not be considered in a subsequent petition for posteonviction relief” (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246 , )).