Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550.

224 citing documents.

Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A petitioner’s claim for relief under the interests-of- justice exception “arises when the petitioner knew or should have known that he had a claim.”
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
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
We have explained that “while Minnesota’s Constitution grants us inherent authority over the procedures within Minnesota’s courts, this authority does not extend to the power to determine when a person may bring a cause of action to Minnesota’s courts.” (internal citation omitted) (characterizing Minn. Stat. § 590.01 as a “cause of action” and upholding the limitations period in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 2016
Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 2016
Jason Mark Musburger v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Mark Musburger v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
e district court erred because his petition revealed a “manifest injustice” that should trigger the interests-of-justice exception for two reasons: (1) at an evidentiary hearing, he could prove that his failure to receive legal correspondence from the public defender’s office meant that a state actor prevented him from diligently pursuing relief in a more timely fashion, d 550, 562 (Minn. 2012), and (2) he had inefficient assistance of counsel at the plea hearing, leading to a coerced plea.
Joseph W. Frederick v. Kay L. Wallerich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
There is not a clear definition of what constitutes “fraudulent concealment.” See Wild v. Rarig, 302 Minn. 419, 450, d 775, 795 (1975) “[T]he threshold necessary to trigger equitable tolling is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule.” fn.10 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted) (addressing equitable tolling of postconviction statutes).
David Lee Frazier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Lee Frazier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Desmon Demond Burks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Desmon Demond Burks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The doctrine of equitable tolling allows a court to consider the merits of a claim when it would otherwise be barred by a statute of 3 limitations.”1
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A claim arises when the petitioner “knew or should have known that the claim existed.”
Jovon Perez Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arnold Fritzroy CoCo James, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jullius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jullius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jovon Perez Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arnold Fritzroy CoCo James, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A claim thus “arises when the petitioner knew or should have known that he had a claim.”
Michael Diori Tillman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Diori Tillman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerry Delaney, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jerry Delaney, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Freddie Lee Jenkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But the interests-of-justice exception “relate[s] to the reason the petition was filed after the 2-year time limit in subdivision 4(a), not the substantive claims in the petition.”
Freddie Lee Jenkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A claim arises when the petitioner “knew or should have known that the claim existed.”
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A claim arises when the petitioner “knew or should have known that the claim existed.”
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
“[A] petitioner’s claim under [the interests-of-justice exception] arises when the petitioner knew or should have known that he had a claim.”
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A claim arises when the petitioner “knew or should have known that the claim existed.”
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
A claim arises under subdivision 4(c) when “the petitioner knew or should have known that he had a claim.”
Craig Allan Hargreaves v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Craig Allan Hargreaves v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Knawon Antony Conda v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Knawon Antony Conda v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kim Marie Robberstad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kim Marie Robberstad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ramon Jimenez Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ramon Jimenez Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] claim arises when the [petitioner] knew or should have known of the claim.”
Antoine Goodman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antoine Goodman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015