DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440.

159 citing documents.

  • Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (stating that an argument raised for the first time on appeal from a denial of postconviction relief is waived); (stating that an argument that is not raised in a principal brief on appeal is waived and may not be revived in a reply brief), rev
  • Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
  • Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
    -23 (Minn.2008) (refusing to consider pro se claims "that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); , 446 n. 6 (Minn.2006) (dismissing a catchall claim because it lacked factual support); , 448 n. 1 (Minn.2005) (refusing to consider ineffective assistance claims because the allegations were mere argumentative assertions without factual support); (Mi
  • Eugene Erick Fort v. State of Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
  • Eugene Erick Fort v. State of Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
    Thus, the Supreme Court has held that a postconviction petitioner “cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in [state postconviction] proceedings.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); -46 (Minn. 2006).
  • Danny Hamilton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Danny Hamilton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    “There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.” (quotation omitted).
  • John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Although Woodward properly asserts his ineffective-assistance-of- postconviction-counsel claim in this appeal from the denial of postconviction relief, (concluding that petitioner’s “[ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel] claim [wa]s properly raised on appeal 9 from the denial of his first petition” for postconviction relief), we conclude that his claim fails on its merits.
  • State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
    The evidence accompanying Bah-tuoh’s postconviction petition, however, provides insufficient support for Bahtuoh’s assertions, and Bahtuoh concedes that the trial transcripts contain “nothing indicating any of this.” We have long held that “[a]lle-gations in a postconviction petition ‘must be more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” ().
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
    In reviewing a postconviction proceeding, we determine “whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the post-conviction court’s findings.” -45 (Minn.2006) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
    2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); -46 (Minn.2006).
  • Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
  • Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
    We have long held that “[a]lle-gations in a postconviction petition ‘must be more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” ().
  • Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
  • Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
  • Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
    (“Because appellate counsel’s failure to raise meritless claims does not constitute deficient performance, [petitioner’s] claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails on the performance prong.’^).
  • State v. Dickerson 777 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Dickerson 777 N.W.2d 529 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Finnegan v. State 764 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
    -49 (Minn.2006) (“Because appellate counsel’s failure to raise meritless claims does not constitute deficient performance, [the defendants] claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails on the performance prong.”).
  • McKenzie v. State 754 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2008
  • McKenzie v. State 754 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2008
    “Allegations in a postconviction petition must be ‘more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” (quoting Beltowski v. State, 289 Minn. 215, 217 , ).
  • Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
  • Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
    It is well settled that claims raised for the first time on appeal “are forfeited for purposes of the appeal.”
  • Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
  • Hannon v. State 752 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2008
  • Lynch v. State 749 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2008
  • Lynch v. State 749 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2008
    The Knaffla rule “‘applies even in postconviction proceedings raising constitutional issues of criminal procedure.’” ().
  • State v. Jedlicka 747 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jedlicka 747 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Anderson v. State 746 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Anderson v. State 746 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
  • Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
  • Buggs v. State 734 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
  • Buggs v. State 734 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2007
    “The Knaffla rule [also] bars ‘all claims that the appellant should have known at the time of direct appeal.’ ” ().
  • Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
  • Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
  • Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007