Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Davis v. State, 784 N.W.2d 387.

94 citing documents.

Gregory Levon Spraggins, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gregory Levon Spraggins, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
felt threatened by Spraggins and did not like working with him.” DECISION Appellate courts “review postconviction decisions under the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.”
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, ”
Brandon Oneil Sturdivant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brandon Oneil Sturdivant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[a]n evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the petitioner fails to allege facts that are sufficient to entitle him or her to the relief requested.”
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION Appellate courts “review postconviction decisions under the abuse-of-discretion standard of review.”
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not warranted when a petitioner’s arguments “are presented solely as argumentative assertions without factual support,” or when the petitioner “does not identify any issues that his counsel should have pursued but did not.” see also Wright, d at 91.
Frank Duane Lussier v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2014
Frank Duane Lussier v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2014
the proceedings conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
Gulbertson v. State 843 N.W.2d 240 Minn. 2014
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
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 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
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
A postconviction court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if the petitioner “fails to allege facts that are sufficient to entitle him or her to the relief requested.” (citation omitted).
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by