Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Doppler v. State, 771 N.W.2d 867.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
argumentative assertion[s].” n.2 (Minn. 2009).
Lannon Lavar Burdunice, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The Knaffla rule also “bars claims that were raised or could have been raised in an earlier postconviction petition.”
Aka Lawrence Fualefeh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Sheldon James Armstrong, III, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(d 737, 741 ( Minn. 1976)).
Marcus Fultz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ryan Daniel Jones-Adams, Petitioner Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Paul Ronny Barsness, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Pearson v. State 891 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2017
Pearson v. State 891 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2017
*597 See Carridine, d at 497 (applying the clearly erroneous standard to the posteonviction court’s credibility findings); (same).
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
To establish that he is entitled to a new trial, Hooper must show that, “without the false testimony, the jury might have reached a different conclusion.” Ferguson, d at 442; -73 (Minn. 2009) (holding that a petitioner failed to satisfy this requirement where a non-eyewitness recanted his testimony, but petitioner’s confession along with other eyewitness testimony remained).
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
Izell Wright Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Izell Wright Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
In doing so, we review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In doing so, we review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error, ”
Larry Dean Mensing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Larry Dean Mensing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2015
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir.1928)
Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
d at 48; -73 (Minn. 2009) (holding that other evidence, including other witnesses and a confession from the appellant, was enough to conclude that it was unlikely the jury would have reached a different result).
Staunton v. State 842 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2014
Staunton v. State 842 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2014
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
In doing so, we review the postcon-viction court’s legal conclusions de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
Riley v. State 819 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2012
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.’ ” (alteration in original) ().
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
(applying Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir.1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir.2004)).
State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
(“Because Turnage did not meet the second prong of the Larrison test, the postconviction court did not err in denying Turnage’s petition and his request for an evidentiary hearing.”); -73 (Minn.2009) (affirming the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on the grounds that, even without the recanting witness’s testimony, the jury would have been unlikely to acquit the defendant where the recanting witness was not present at the scene of the crime and only testified as to incriminatin