Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Quick v. State, 692 N.W.2d 438.

29 citing documents.

Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
There are two exceptions to the Knaffla bar: “(1) if the claim presents a novel legal issue or (2) if fairness requires review of the claim and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.”
Charles Earl Strother, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Scott Marlin Morey, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Earl Anthony Fry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larry Jermaine McCool, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Brent Lanier Lynch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Patrick Murphy, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Tracy Alan Zornes v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2016
Tracy Alan Zornes v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 363 Minn. 2016
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
1 (2012) (“A petition for postconviction relief after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction or sentence.”); (“Knaffla also bars claims that should have been known at the time of direct appeal.”).
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
Generally, we review a postconviction court’s determinations for abuse of discretion, 6 however, the post-conviction court’s lack of findings and analysis makes it difficult for us to do so here.
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Davis v. State 784 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2010
Davis v. State 784 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2010
may summarily deny a petition when the issues raised in it have previously been decided by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in the same case.”)
Quick v. State 757 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 2008
Quick v. State 757 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 2008
Quick v. State (Quick II)