Cited by

Defendants bear the burden in a postconviction proceeding to establish “by a fair preponderance of the evidence facts that warrant reopening the case.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

To prevail, the petitioner must provide a “colorable explanation of why he failed to raise these claims previously.”

See, (finding the interests-of-justice exception to the Knaffla rule was not met when petitioner failed to provide a colorable explanation of why claims were not raised previously); Wright, d at 90 (same).

A court may permit a procedurally barred claim under the interests-of-fairness-and-justice exception if the petitioner provides a “colorable explanation of why he failed to raise these claims previously.”

(reaching a similar conclusion).

Claims asserted in a second postconviction petition are Knaffla-barred “if they could have been raised on direct appeal or in a previous postconviction petition.”

The interests-of -justice exception applies only “if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the claim on direct appeal.”

The interests-of-justice exception applies only “if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcus ably fail to raise the claim on direct appeal.” Perry v. State

The interests -of-justice exception applies “if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not deliberately and 11 inexcusably fail to raise the claim on direct appeal.”

See Perry v. State , , 147 (Minn. 2007).

Perry v. State , , 147 (Minn. 2007).

See Perry v. State , , 146 (Minn. 2007) ("Claims asserted in a ...

Fairness does not require review of any of John’s claims because he fails to present “a colorable explanation of why he failed to raise these claims previously.”

But fairness does not require review if Abdillahi fails to present “a colorable explanation of why he failed to raise these claims previously.” Perry 7 v. State

4 The state cites Perry v. State, which held that “[c]laims asserted in a second or subsequent postconviction petition are procedurally barred under this court’s Knaffla rule if they could have been raised on direct appeal or in a previous postconviction petition.” (emphasis added).

In this case, Davis “has not presented a colorable explanation of why he failed to raise these claims previously.”

Absent such a showing, the interests-of-justice exception cannot apply.”); (“[F]airness does not require that [an appellate court] 2 Although Strother argued in his postconviction petition that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel during the direct appeal, he did not include that argument in his briefs for this appeal, and therefore the argument has

The interests-of-justice exception “applies if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the claim on direct appeal.”

See, (stating that, to invoke the interests-of-justice exception to the Knaffla rule, a petitioner must not have deliberately and inexcusably failed to raise a claim).

Although there are two exceptions to Knaffla, we decline to apply those exceptions if they are not raised by the petitioner.