Cited by

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

850 citing documents.

Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, ).
Danny Hamilton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Danny Hamilton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
UNPUBLISHED OPINION HOOTEN, Judge Pro se appellant challenges the denial of his postconviction petition following his direct appeal, arguing that the postconviction court erred by concluding that his claims were without merit and were barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 2015
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 2015
The postconviction court denied Wayne’s petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that his claim was time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01 and procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Kyle Richard Greene v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kyle Richard Greene v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4(a)(2) (2014) or (2) the restrictions outlined in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In addition to the timing requirement, the Knaffla rule states 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
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In making this 1 State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252–53
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Larry Roosevelt Noble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Larry Roosevelt Noble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 (2012), and procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
I. Pfarr argues that his claims of improper impeachment and ineffective assistance of trial counsel “should not be procedurally barred.” When “direct appeal has once been taken,” all issues raised in the appeal, and all issues “known but not raised, will not be considered [in] a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, d 737, 741 (1976).
Sin Santo Bad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sin Santo Bad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
w interpretation of Fourth Amendment rights following Jones did not affect appellant’s conviction because appellant’s employer consented to the search, and “[c]onsent is a well-recognized exception to the [Fourth Amendment] warrant requirement.” The postconviction court also ruled that appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, and rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because appellant “
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In light of this holding, we need not analyze whether postconviction relief is also barred by the rule announced in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court also concluded that even if the petition was timely, no relief was warranted: all the claims for postconviction relief were either raised on direct appeal or known at that time and thus barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We also reject the state’s claim that appellant’s postconviction petition is procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, because this court has not yet addressed the underlying merits of his claims.
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The state argues that White’s “ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims are procedurally barred.” See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 246, (“Where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, or all claims known but not raised will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.”).
Frank Duane Lussier v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2014
Frank Duane Lussier v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2014
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 postconviction relief.” 309 Minn. 246, 252
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252-53, (listing Knaffla exceptions); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 253
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Moreover, “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
Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court denied the petition, and this court affirmed, holding that Spears’s claim was barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, because he did not challenge his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds in his direct appeal.
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When “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
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014