Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Powers v. State, 695 N.W.2d 371.

103 citing documents.

Akpene Yaa Asempa v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Akpene Yaa Asempa v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
There are two limited exceptions to the Knaffla rule— cases “(1) where a novel legal issue is presented; or (2) where the interests of fairness require relief.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Aka Lawrence Fualefeh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The postconviction court concluded that “[n]o Knaffla exceptions apply to any of [Fualefeh’s] claims.” As to the first Knaffla exception, “a claim must be so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available to petitioner at the time the direct appeal was taken.”
Jermaine Octavious Stansberry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A19-0676 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Prince Lashone Holt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To satisfy the novel-legal- issue exception, “a claim must be so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available to [the] petitioner at the time the direct appeal was taken.” d 371, 374 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ryan Daniel Jones-Adams, Petitioner Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An evidentiary hearing is not required unless there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.” 11 (Minn. 2005).
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Delaney Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Delaney Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An evidentiary hearing is not required unless there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”
David Lee Frazier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Lee Frazier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An evidentiary hearing is required only if “there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christopher Joseph Washington v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christopher Joseph Washington v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An evidentiary hearing is required only if “there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jovon Perez Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jullius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An evidentiary hearing is required only if “there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”
Jullius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jovon Perez Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gregory Lee Cobbins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lyndsey Rae Kidd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gregory Lee Cobbins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An evidentiary hearing is required only if “there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”
Lyndsey Rae Kidd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An evidentiary hearing is required only if “there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”
Monda Thao v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Freddie Lee Jenkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Monda Thao v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Freddie Lee Jenkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-75 (Minn. 2005) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying postconviction relief without a hearing where petitioner’s arguments were Knaffla-barred).
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“An evidentiary hearing is not required unless there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”).
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ignacio Olalde-Hernandez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ignacio Olalde-Hernandez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“To meet that burden, a petitioner’s 3 allegations must be supported by more than mere argumentative assertions that lack factual support.” (citation omitted).
Jermaine Kershawn Perry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jermaine Kershawn Perry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“To meet that burden, a petitioner’s allegations must be supported by more than mere argumentative assertions that lack factual support.”
Kim Marie Robberstad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kim Marie Robberstad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An evidentiary hearing is required only if “there are material facts in dispute that must be resolved to determine the postconviction claim on its merits.”
Ramon Jimenez Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015