Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Powers v. State, 731 N.W.2d 499.

67 citing documents.

Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
“ ‘It is well settled that a party may not raise issues for the first time on appeal’ from denial of postconviction relief.” (); d 499, 502 (Minn. 2007) (declining to consider an argument that the postconviction petitioner did not raise before the district court).
Remona Lysa Brown, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that reviewing courts generally will not decide issues not raised in district court); (declining to consider a postconviction argument not raised in district court).
Robert Sam Raisch, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 8 N.W.3d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Robert Sam Raisch, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 8 N.W.3d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 499, 501 n.2 (Minn. 2007).
Justin Lee Ironhawk, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
4(a), and a procedural bar on bringing claims that the individual knew or should have known about at the time of an earlier appeal or postconviction petition, d 205, 210 (Minn. App. 2014) (citing Knaffla, d at 741; ).
Marcel Moses, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that when direct appeal is dismissed on procedural grounds, a postconviction petitioner may raise substantive issues in a postconviction appeal), rev. denied (Minn. July 25, 2000); (declining to consider postconviction argument not raised in district court); d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (explaining that reviewing court must generally consider only issues presented and considered below).
Anthony Scott David Auginaush, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minn. 2021
n.2 (Minn. 2007) (stating D-5 The court concludes that the Legislature intended that result.
Fong Lee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Similarly, “matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.”
Robert Lee Crum, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Similarly, “matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.”
A19-0676 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Powers v. State , -02 (Minn. 2007) (affirming denial of postconviction-relief claim raised differently in two postconviction petitions because could have been raised in earlier petition).
Malik Jordan Olsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Deon Lashawn Mallett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 499, 502 (Minn. 2007); -47 (Minn. 2005).
John Patrick Murphy, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The same is true of subsequent petitions for postconviction relief: issues “raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.”
Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
Id.; (holding that the Knaffla rule also applies to claims raised or known at the time of earlier postconviction petitions).
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-43 (Minn. 2009); n.2 (Minn. 2007).
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, the Knaffla rule does not apply: “(1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.”
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Similarly, “matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.”
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that a postconviction petition may not raise issues that are “essentially the same” as those raised on direct appeal); State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, (stating that all matters raised on direct appeal, or known but not raised, will not be considered in po
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-01 & n.2 (Minn. 2007) (noting that district court properly considered defendant’s rule 27.03 motion to correct his sentence as his third postconviction petition).
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In addition, “matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.”
Keith Allen Halland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Keith Allen Halland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 211; n.2 (Minn. 2007) (“The district court’s decision [to treat the rule 27.03 motion as a postconviction petition] finds support in the language of Minn. Stat. § 590.01, which is broad enough to encompass a motion pursuant to Minn. R. Crim.
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Id.; n.2 (Minn. 2007) (stating that section 590.01 is “broad enough to encompass a motion pursuant to Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Jack Perry Frazier Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jack Perry Frazier Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.2 (Minn. 2007) (noting that “the language of Minn. Stat § 590.01 .
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252-53, (listing Knaffla exceptions); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But the Knaffla rule does not apply: “(1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.”
Willie James Richardson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
And “matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.”
Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Furthermore, the procedural bar applies to second and subsequent postconviction petitions: “matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for post-conviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for post-conviction relief.”
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
The postcon-viction court also concluded that the petition was procedurally barred by Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246
Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
P. 27.08.” , 501 n. 2 (Minn.2007).
Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Frisch v. State 840 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A similar procedural bar applies to second and successive postconviction petitions: “matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.” (applying Knaffla and Powers to district court’s decision to treat motion to amend postconviction petition as second postconviction petition).
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013