Cited by

–98 (Minn. 2006) (noting that we were “hesitant to predict how the Supreme Court would view [the issue under the United States Constitution]” and accordingly deferring “the question of whether the United States Constitution guarantees the right [at issue]” and resolving the case based on our interpretation of t

In Minnesota, “a convicted defendant is entitled to at least one right of review by an appellate or postconviction court.” Deegan v. State , (quotation omitted).

12 In his appellate brief, Silva appears to refer to arguments that he raised in his June 2024 petition for postconviction relief and asks that we apply the interests-of- justice exception to the procedural bar, asserting that his “case has substantive merit” and that he did not “deliberately [and] inexcusably fail to raise any claim in [his] ” But Silva did not raise the interests-of -justice exception in his April 25, 2024 amended motion for vacated sentence, and appellate courts “decline to a

(stating that the first review of a conviction by a postconviction court is similar in scope to a direct appeal); d 590, 601 (Minn. 2012 ) (concluding that the statutory two-year time limit for filing a petition for postconviction relief was intended to act as a statute

“Claims decided in the interests of justice require that the claims have substantive merit and that the defendant did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (quotations omitted).

(stating first review by postconviction is similar to direct appeal).

(stating that a 360-month prison sentence was a “downward durational departure” from the presumptive 386-month prison sentence).

Minn. Const. art. I, § 6

Because Dowell did not take a direct appeal, he may “raise nearly the same breadth of claims that could have been brought in a direct appeal.”

Because Minnesota defendants are afforded the right to appellate review, Minnesota law affords criminal defendants greater appellat e rights than under federal law.” See, -96 (Minn. 2006) (commenting that rights to appellate review are broader under the Minnesota Constitution than under the U.S. Cons titution).

Pursuant to the Minnesota Constitution, a defendant is entitled to assistance of counsel for “one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first review by postconviction proceeding.” Deegan v. State

(“We hold that a defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel under Article 1, section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution extends to one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first review by postconviction proceeding.”).

Compare Deegan v. State , (holding that a defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel under the Minnesota Constitu tion extends to one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first r eview by postconviction proceeding), (stating defendant

” Deegan v. State , ( quotation omitted).

“We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo.”

d 89, 94 (Minn. 2006) (stating that a postconvi ction petitioner can raise nearly the same breadth of issues in a postco nviction proceeding that could ha ve been brought in a direct appeal).

(stating that a postconviction petitioner can raise “nearly the same br eadth” of issues in a postconviction proceeding that could have been brought in a direct appeal).

extends to one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first review by postconviction proceeding.”

see Minn. Stat. §§ 590.01-.11 (2016) (“postconviction statute”).

(extending the right to counsel to “one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first review by postconviction proceeding”); Minn. Stat. § 590.02, subd.

United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equip., LLC

“[A] postconviction petitioner is entitled to raise nearly the same breadth of claims that could have been brought in a direct appeal.”

If a criminal offender does not pursue a direct appeal but later raises an issue of procedural error in a postconviction proceeding, the postconviction action “is substantially similar in scope to a direct appeal.”

A “defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel under article I, section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution extends to one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first review by postconviction proceeding.”

A “defendant’s right to the assistance of counsel under Article I, section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution extends to one review of a criminal conviction, whether by direct appeal or a first review by postconviction proceeding.”

Stated differently, to satisfy that exception, “a claim must have substantive merit and the defendant must not have deliberately and inexcusably failed to raise the issue on direct appeal.” Gassler, d at 586 (- 94 (Minn. 2006)).

(observing that Minnesota’s postconviction relief statute “provides broader grounds for relief” than is required by federal constitutional law).