Cited by

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

224 citing documents.

Ky Antoinette Word v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ky Antoinette Word v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Interests of Justice The supreme court has “made clear” that “the interests-of-justice referred to in [Minn. Stat. § 490.01,] subdivision 4(b)(5)[,] relate to the reason the petition was filed after the 2–year time limit in subdivision 4(a), not the substantive claims in the petition.”
Julio Cesar Garcia-Gomez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Julio Cesar Garcia-Gomez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Sanchez v. State, the supreme court held that a claim under the interests-of- justice exception arises “when the petitioner knew or should have known that he had a claim.”
Victoria Lynn Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Victoria Lynn Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Reginald Bruce Long v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Reginald Bruce Long v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A claim arises when the petitioner “knew or should have known that the claim existed.”
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 866 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2015
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 866 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2015
Somlith Vongphasouk v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doris Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Somlith Vongphasouk v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-67 (Minn. 2012); n.14 (Minn. 2012).
Doris Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A claim thus “arises when the petitioner knew or should have known that [s]he had a claim.”
Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2015
Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2015
Alina Marie Konczak v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alina Marie Konczak v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] claim arises when the [petitioner] knew or should have known of the claim.”
Sabranino Altranino Thompson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alan Alberto Zamora Morales v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sabranino Altranino Thompson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alan Alberto Zamora Morales v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In Sanchez v. State, the supreme court held that a claim under the interests-of- justice exception arises “when the petitioner knew or should have known that he had a claim.”
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 2015
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 860 N.W.2d 702 Minn. 2015
Tha Phongvixay v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tha Phongvixay v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has “made clear” that “the interests-of-justice referred to in [subdivision 4] relate to the reason the petition was filed after the 2-year time limit in subdivision 4(a), not the substantive claims in the petition.” (emphasis in original).
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benard Nyangate Mauti v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benard Nyangate Mauti v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 550, 560 (Minn. 2012); Taylor, d at 79; Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252, d at 741.
German N. Salgado Velasquez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
German N. Salgado Velasquez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The date a claim arises is 4 based upon an objective “knew or should have known standard.”
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A claim arises when the petitioner “knew or should have known that the claim existed.”
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The “interests of justice” referred to in section 590.01, subdivision 4(b)(5), “relate to the reason the [postconviction] petition was filed after the 2-year time limit in subdivision 4(a), not the substantive claims in the petition.” (emphasis in original).
Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota 855 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota 855 N.W.2d 544 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
e filed more than two years after the later of: (1) the entry of judgment of conviction or sentence if no direct appeal is filed; or (2) an appellate court’s disposition of petitioner’s direct appeal.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has previously held that this subdivision is “clear and free from all ambiguity” and therefore must be construed “according to its plain language.” (quotation omitted).
Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
For this purpose, the date “the claim arises” has been interpreted to mean “when the petitioner knew or should have known that he had a claim.”
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he interests-of-justice exception is triggered by an injustice that caused the petitioner to miss the primary deadline in subdivision 4(a), not 9 the substance of the petition.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012).