Cited by

(noting that “[i]t is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief” (quotation omitted)).

(noting that “it is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal 4 from denial of postconviction relief”).

Generally, appellate courts “will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal.” (“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted)).

-78 (Minn. 2016); -48 (Minn. 2005).

“ ‘It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal’ from denial of postconviction relief.” (); d 499, 502 (Minn. 2007) (declining to consider an argument that the postconviction petitioner did not raise before the district court).

Thus, no argument for application of the subdivision 4(b) exceptions to the time-bar—especially as to Silva’s April 25, 2024 amended motion for vacated sentence— (“Because Azure did not raise the claim in his postconviction petition and the postconviction court made no findings on the issue, we have no postconviction ruling to review.”); (explaining that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues whi

But “[i]t is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted).

(explaining that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief).

“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.”

(“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted)).

10 In Azure v. State, the supreme court noted that “[i]t is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that petitioner may not raise issue for the first time on appeal from the denial of postconviction relief).

“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (determining an appellant’s claims raised for the first time on appeal are forfeited).

“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted).

It is also well-settled that “ ‘a pa rty may not raise issues for the first time on appeal’ from denial of postconviction relief.” (quoting Robinson v. State , n.2 (Minn. 1997)).

“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted); see also Ashby v. State

Generally, we will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, and “[i]t is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (refusing to decide postconviction claims raised for the first time on appeal) (); (“We will not address [an] argument for the first time on appeal from a postconviction petition.”).

“[A] party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” Azure v. State , (quotation and citations omitted).

(“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted)).

d 499, 502 (Minn. 2007); -47 (Minn. 2005).

( (“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted))).

“‘It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal’ from denial of postconviction relief.” Azure v. State , ( n.2 (Minn. 1997)).

violated the rights of his wife and the victim; (8) the state failed to convene a grand jury; and (9) based on a Biblical quote, “even if there had been a sexual involvement between [Johnson] and the Alleged victim, the State cannot say it is illegal.” “It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” Azure v. State , (quotation omitted).

“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (qu otation omitted).

“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” d 443, 447 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted) (declining to consider constitutional issue).

See Azure v. State , , 448 (Minn. 2005) (holding that a Fourth Amendment claim was Knaffla -barred when petitioner knew, at the time of his direct appeal, that the State had obtained evidence pursuant to a search warrant and had presented that evidence at trial).

d 443, 447 (Minn. 2005).

1(1) (2016) (“All grounds for relief must be stated in the petition or any amendment thereof.”); (“Because [petitioner] did not raise the claim in his postconviction petition and the postconviction court made no findings on the issue, we have no postconviction ruling to review.”).

2 See Azure v. State , (holding that postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in determining appellant’s sufficie ncy of evidence claim was procedurally barred because it was not raised in appellant’s direct appeal).

(" 'It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal' from denial of postconviction relief.” ( , 494 n.2 (Minn. 1997))).

“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” (quotation omitted)

“It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal from denial of postconviction relief.” d 443, 447 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

4 (concluding that petitioner forfeited his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim for purposes of postconviction appeal where petitioner failed to raise claim in postconviction petition and district court made no findings on issue).

Consequently, (holding that an argument raised for the first time on appeal of a denial of a postconviction petition was not properly before us); (same).

-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); (deeming allegations waived when the brief contained "no argument or citation to legal authority in support of