DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

67 citing documents.

  • Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
    (stating that we “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); (declin *493 ing to address issue that was not raised in the postconviction court).
  • Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
  • Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
    (holding that issue not raised before the postconviction court was forfeited for the purposes of appeal); (declining to address issue that was not raised in the postconviction court).
  • State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    at 316 (-43 (Minn.2009); , 501 n.2 (Minn.2007)).
  • Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    -43 (Minn.2009); , 501 n. 2 (Minn.2007).
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
    Also, “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.”
  • Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
  • Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
  • Bonga v. State 765 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
  • Bonga v. State 765 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 2009
    to “summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner.” Although we do not decide if the postconviction court was correct in treating Bonga’s 2001 motion as a petition for postconviction relief, we note the postcon-viction court’s treatment of Bonga’s motion as a , 501 n. 2 (Minn. *643 2007), and that Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
    See, e.g., Powers v. State (Powers II), (recognizing interests of justice exception to Knajfla bar).
  • Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
  • Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
    (declining to consider postconviction appellant’s argument not raised before the postconviction court); -47 (Minn.2005) (declining to consider postcon-viction appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as not properly before the court when it wa