Cited by

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

103 citing documents.

Ramon Jimenez Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antoine Goodman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antoine Goodman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To meet that burden, a petitioner’s allegations must be supported by more than mere argumentative assertions that lack factual support.”
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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.”
Megan Marie Kochendorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Megan Marie Kochendorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ky Antoinette Word v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ky Antoinette Word v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To meet that burden, a petitioner’s allegations must be supported by more than mere argumentative assertions that lack factual support.”
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1 (2014); (“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.”).
Sara Elaine Katra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sara Elaine Katra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“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.”).
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To meet that burden, a petitioner’s allegations must be supported by more than mere argumentative assertions that lack factual support.”
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To meet that burden, a petitioner’s allegations must be supported by more than mere argumentative assertions that lack factual support.”
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To meet that burden, a petitioner’s allegations must be supported by more than mere argumentative assertions that lack factual support.”
James Spencer, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Spencer, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joshua Zachary Matter v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Joshua Zachary Matter v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To fall under this 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.”
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that claims decided in the interests of fairness and justice must have substantive merit).
Bonga v. State 765 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
Bonga v. State 765 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
I. On review from a summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief, “ ‘we examine whether sufficient evidence exists to support the district court’s findings’ ” and will only reverse upon “ ‘proof that the postconviction court abused its discretion.’ ” ().
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
In addition, for the interests of justice exception to apply, the appellant “must not have 'deliberately and inexcusably’ failed to raise the issue on direct appeal.’’ Powers v. State (.Powers I), (internal citation omitted).
Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
Rhodes v. State 735 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2007
See, -74 (Minn.2005) (“A petitioner seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing the facts *318 alleged in the petition by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”).
Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006