Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Williams v. State, 692 N.W.2d 893.

40 citing documents.

Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Williams v. State (Williams II)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5 We observe that the moving party has the burden of proof on rule 27.03 motions, and on postconviction petitions under section 590.01
Kenneth Eugene Andersen, Minn. 2020
at 226–27; see also Williams v. State
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
Brown , d at 618 (quoting Williams v. State , , 896 (Minn. 2005) ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Williams v. State , d 893, 896 (Minn. 2005).
Campbell v. State 916 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2018
Campbell v. State 916 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 2018
Williams v. State , , 896 (Minn. 2005).
Jason Edward Banks, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel “In postconviction proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, facts that warrant relief.” d 893, 896 (Minn. 2005).
Brown v. State 895 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
Brown v. State 895 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
(-23 (Minn. 2004)); see also Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 717-18 (7th Cir. 2004) (modifying the Larrison standard).
A16-0648 Minn. 2017
(d 414, 422-23 (Minn. 2004)); see also Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 71 7-18 (7th Cir. 2004) (modifying the Larrison standard).
Ronnie Jerome Jackson, III, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To prevail on a petition for postconviction relief, the petitioner must establish facts that warrant relief by “a fair preponderance of the evidence.” Williams v. State , see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
Jonathan Nicholas Turner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jonathan Nicholas Turner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brian Jeffrey Copeland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brian Jeffrey Copeland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In postconviction proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, facts that warrant relief.” d 893, 896 (Minn. 2005).
Ribelino Alberto Avendano v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ribelino Alberto Avendano v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In postconviction proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, facts that warrant relief.”
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota 869 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2015
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota 869 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2015
Williams v. State (Williams II), -96 (Minn. 2005) (footnotes omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Danny Hamilton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Danny Hamilton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In postconviction proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, facts that warrant relief.” d 893, 896 (Minn. 2005).
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
We examine whéther the jury “would not likely” have found the defendant guilty and consider whether the “other evidence against the defendant was overwhelming.” (concluding there was compelling evidence outside the witness’s testimony to support the finding of guilt); (concluding recantation was “not likely to produce either an acquittal or a more favorable result”).
Melde v. State 778 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Melde v. State 778 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
3 (stating that when the post-conviction court concludes that appellant failed to meet the first prong of Larrison , it need not consider whether the jury may have reached a different result without the witness’s testimony).
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007
Opsahl v. State 710 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006
Opsahl v. State 710 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2006