Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Turnage, 729 N.W.2d 593.

74 citing documents.

Robert Ian Agarano, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Cedric Lamont Berry v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
Still, the petitioner bears the ultimate burden to allege facts entitling him to relief; he “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.”
Andrew Vernard Glover v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
A petitioner bears the burden to show facts entitling them to relief and, to meet that burden, “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.”
Juan Pachuco Silva, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The first two prongs are compulsory, but the third prong is not required in order to grant a new trial.”
Jennifer Lynn Baldwin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
6 6 The Larrison test, derived from Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87–88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir. 2004), is a three-prong test used “to determine whether a petition for postconviction relief warrants a new trial based on recantation of trial testimony.”
Robert John Kaiser v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Robert John Kaiser v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
7 prongs are compulsory, but the third prong is not required in order to grant a new trial.”
Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Any doubts about holding a hearing should be resolved in favor of the [petitioner].” Ferguson, d at 659; (“Any doubts by the court about whether to hold an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the [petitioner].”).
Stephen Carl Allwine, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An appellant seeking postconviction relief “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support .” State v. Turnage , (M inn.
Thomas Robert Tichich, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
There, we evaluate “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that without the [false] testimony, the jury might have reached a different conclusion.” - 99 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
George Cornelius Watkins, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Larry Jonnell Gilbert, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(noting that appellant asserting ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must “do more than offer conclusory argumentative assertions, without factual suppor t”).
Pierre Scott Glass, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A petitioner will not meet her burden if she merely offers “conclusory, argumentative assertions, without fac tual support.”
Dante Christopher Horton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellant further contends that the dist rict court erred by failing to discuss the Larrison test1
Jimmie Dunlap, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A petitioner will not meet his burden if he merely offers “conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.” State v. Turnage
Kevin Scott Smith, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A petitioner will not meet his burden if he merely offers “conclu sory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.”
Miguel Angel Rodriguez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To satisfy tha t burden, the petitioner “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.” State v. Turnage
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To satisfy that burden, an appellant “must do more than offer conclusory, argument ative assertions, without factual support.”
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
State v. Turnage , , 598 (Minn. 2007).
John Stephen Woodward, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Turnage , see also Rossberg v. State , (“Because Rossberg’s postconviction petition consisted of conclusory allegations without factual support, the petition failed to satisfy the requirements of the postconviction statute.”).
Dominique Salatheia Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
3 -73 (Minn. 2014); Bobo v. State , n.4 (Minn. 2012); Ferguson v. State , ; State v. Turnage , -98 (Minn. 2007)
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
See, e.g. , Henderson v. State , , 507 (Minn. 2018) ; Caldwell v. State , , 772-73 (Minn. 2014) ; Bobo v. State , , 517 n.4 (Minn. 2012) ; Ferguson v. State , , 560 (Minn. 2010) ; State v. Turnage , , 597-98 (Minn. 2007).
Keith Henderson, Minn. 2018
2d 511, 516 (Minn. 2012) (“An evidentiary hearing provides the postconviction court the means for evaluating the credibility of a witness.” (citations omitted)); (“[A]bsent a[n evidentiary] hearing, the postconviction court cannot make a judgment about which story is true and which is false.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To satisfy the burden of proof, a petitioner “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.”
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To satisfy that burden, the appellant “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.” (explaining the burden of petitioners seeking postconviction relief).
Kenneth Ernest Poland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth Ernest Poland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, (“The salient feature of 6 petitioner] to the relief requested.” see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To satisfy his burden, Olson “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To satisfy this burden, he “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.”
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Michael Fenney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
gave false testimony at trial.” Courts “apply a three-prong test known as the Larrison test to determine whether a petition for postconviction relief warrants a new trial based on recantation of trial testimony.” see Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928) (setting forth test), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir. 2004) (modifying test).
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To satisfy that burden, an appellant “must do more than offer conclusory, argumentative assertions, without factual support.”