Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Barnes v. State, 768 N.W.2d 359.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (stating that postconviction evidentiary proceedings allow an appellant “to develop the evidence necessary to allow our court to review [an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel] claim during the direct appeal”).
Terrance James Bowers, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Faron Wayne Ruel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And “a defendant who has been represented by counsel on direct appeal, has no right to counsel in a subsequent postconviction proceeding.” Barnes v. State
Steven James Hayes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The third prong—whether substa ntial rights were 2 “It is a well-established rule that any claims not argued by the parties are deemed waived unless prejudicial errors are obvious from the record.” n.2 (Minn. 2009); -14 (Minn. App. 2013) (declining to decide whether a trial error was harmless because the state failed to raise the issue).
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
State v. Williams , , 517 n.2 (Minn. 2009) (holding that although the issues in question were properly raised in the petition for review, the defendant forfeited appellate review of the issues when he failed to brief or argue the issues in our court); see also Staunton v. State , , 296 n.8 (Minn. 2010) (same); Barnes v. State , , 363 n.2 (Minn. 2009) (same); State v. Hurd , , 32 (Minn. 2009) (same); Scruggs v. State , , 24 n.1 (Minn. 1992) (same).
Francisco Cleofus Mountain, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Eugene Erick Fort v. State of Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
Eugene Erick Fort v. State of Minnesota 861 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2015
We have also held, however, “that a defendant who has been represented by counsel on direct appeal has no right under the Minnesota Constitution to the assistance of counsel—effective or otherwise—in a subsequent postconviction proceeding.” Ferguson, d at 816; Schleicher, d at 446.
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hughes v. State 851 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2014
Hughes v. State 851 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2014
The postconviction court, denied his request.
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
As a general rule, issues that are not raised by an appellant on appeal “are deemed waived unless prejudicial errors *313 are obvious from the record.” , 363 n. 2 (Minn. 2009).
Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
See, (stating that postconviction evidentiary proceedings allow appellants “to develop the evidence necessary to allow our court to review [an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel] claim during the direct appeal”).
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
675 n. 3 (Minn.2008); , 746 n. 1 (Minn.1998).
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
(citing Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252 , d at 741 ).
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
“The Minnesota Constitution guarantees the right to counsel'for one review of a criminal conviction, ‘whether by direct appeal or a first review by post-conviction proceeding.’ ” ().