DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stewart v. State, 764 N.W.2d 32.

30 citing documents.

  • Carl Adam Mulvihill, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    In response, the state cites an opinion of the supreme court that, it contends, is contrary to Mulvihill’s argumen t. In Stewart v. State , the offender petitioned for post -conviction relief more than seven years after his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
  • A18-1615 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    dividuals convicted of crimes to bring claims that “the conviction obtained or the sentence or other disposition made violated the person’s ri ghts under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the state”); -56 (Minn. 2012) (addressing a postconviction petition alleging violations of the Fourth and Sixth Amendments); Stewart v. State , -34 (Minn. 2009) (considering a postconviction petition alleging a lack of subje ct-matter jurisdiction based on an argument that the laws were invali
  • Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    2005 Minn. Laws ch. 136, art 14, § 13, at 1097-98
  • Derrick Delmar Brocks v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2016
  • Derrick Delmar Brocks v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2016
    (citing Act of June 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 14, § 13, 1999 Minn. Laws 901, 1097-98).
  • Craig Allan Hargreaves v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Craig Allan Hargreaves v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Here, suggesting that the postcon-vietion time limit was jurisdictional.
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
  • Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
  • Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
    The legislation amending the statute is effective as of August 1, 2005, and “[a]ny person whose conviction became final before August 1, 2005, shall have two years after the effective date of [the amendments] to file a petition for postconviction relief.” See Act of June 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 14, § 13, 2005 Minn. Laws 901 , 1097
  • Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
  • Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
  • Larson v. State 801 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Larson v. State 801 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
  • Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
  • Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
  • Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
    No. 623, -21 (Minn.1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); (holding that an untimely filed petition for postconviction relief “should not be considered on the merits”); (“[T]he limitation provisions in a statutorily created cause of action are jurisdictional, requiring dismissal for failure to comply...
  • Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
  • Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
    The State argues that Roby’s petition was insufficient to raise the statutory interests-of-justice exception because he did not “cite this provision, refer to it in any way, or note its requirement that a *190 tardy petition be not frivolous and in the interests of justice.” in support of its conclusion that a petition “filed after the two-year deadline and which fails to invoke one of the five listed exceptions to the time limit is untimely and should not be considered on its merits.” (Emphasis
  • Hannon v. State 781 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 2010
  • Hannon v. State 781 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 2010
  • Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    4(a), (b) (2006) (emphasis added)
  • Moua v. State 778 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2010
  • Moua v. State 778 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 2010
    See R. 13; 2005 Minn. Laws at 1098