Cited by

see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

See Lynch v. State , (Minn. 7 Moreover, Roulo has not identified any facts supporting these claims that needed further development at an evidentiary hearing.

See Heggs, 2024 WL 3493817, at *3

Even if Barker had raised this issue during district court proceedings, we would reject his position based on the law-of-the-case doctrine, which provides that “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (quotation omitted) (applying the law-of-the-case doctrine to reject a postconviction claim considered on direct appeal).

Additionally, the doctrine bars relitigating an issue resolved earlier in the same case “even if the issue presented is not precisely the same in all its details.” Townsend, d at 17 ().

There are two exceptions to this general rule: (1) “if the claim’s novelty was so great that its legal basis was not reasonably available when direct appeal was taken” or (2) “when fairness so requires and when the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (quoting Leake, d at 535).

Next, Bartu asserts that his claim should not be barred because “Miranda is a constitutional issue that everyone in the United States is afforded.” But the Knaffla bar “applies even in postconviction proceedings raising constitutional issues of criminal procedure.” (quotations omitted).

1 (2022); (“A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the petition and the files and records of the proceedings conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” (quotations omitted)).

There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) “if the claim’s novelty was so great that its legal basis was not reasonably available when direct appeal was taken” and (2) in the interests of justice, “when fairness so requires and when the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” ().

(stating that the law of the case doctrine bars issues that have been previously decided in the same case).

(“Because on direct appeal we explicitly considered, addressed, and made a holding regarding [the defendant’s] current postconviction claim, we conclude that .

“Issues determined in a first appeal will not be relitigated in the trial court nor re-examined in a second appeal.” (quotation omitted) (applying law-of-the-case doctrine); (concluding law-of-the-case doctrine barred a postconviction claim that had been decided on direct appeal).

2 When this “court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should cont inue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (quotation omitted) (applying “law of the case” doctrine on appeal from denial of a postconviction claim); (“When an appellate court has ruled on an issue of law, the issue decided becomes law of

This is because the procedural bar prevents an appellant’s claim that was “previously raised, litigated, and decided on direct appeal.” d 318, 319 (Minn. 2008).

Lynch v. State , , 321 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Schleicher v. State , , 445 (Minn. 2006) ).

A court also need not hold a hearing when the petition is based on “argumentative assertions without factual support.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The petition must allege “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The petition must allege “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

d 318, 321 (Minn. 2008) (stating that the law of the case doctrine bars issues that have been previously decided in the same case).

That doctrine provides that “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (quotations omitted).

The petition must allege “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.”

3 (2012) (stating that the court may summarily deny a second or successive petition when the issues raised in it have been previously decided by this court or the supreme court in the same case); (stating that the Minnesota Supreme Court “addressed and decided this 5 precise issue on direct appeal and denied relief.

(“This doctrine provides that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”) (quotations omitted)); (“Issues determined in a first appeal will not be reliti

(“We conclude that [defendant’s claim ...