Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590.

133 citing documents.

Mike Sanchez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Morse , d 499, 502 (Minn. 2016) (noting that reviewing courts consider only the issues that were presented and considered by the district court ); see also Carlton v. State , (“[T]he State’s failure to assert that [ the defendant’s] petition was untimely under the 2 -year statute of limitations [in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Carlton v. State , , 607 (Minn. 2012) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Hunn 911 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2018
State v. Hunn 911 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2018
See Carlton v. State , , 614 (Minn. 2012) (describing a statement as dictum "because the resolution of that question [was] not necessary to our ultimate holding" (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) ).
Keith Henderson, Minn. 2018
See Carlton v. State , (“[T]he statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Amecio Navro Enge, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he interests of justice are implicated only in exceptional and extraordinary situations.” (quotation omitted).
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Ariola, as next of kin of, and trustee for, the Estate of Jack Ariola Erenberg, his son, … 889 N.W.2d 340 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Courts hear untimely petitions in the interests of justice in “exceptional and extraordinary situations.” (quotation omitted).
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
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Due process requires that a criminal defendant be given “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted).
Charlie Junior Pryor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Charlie Junior Pryor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
These factors do not comprise a “rigid test” and “[d]ifferent factors may be dispositive in the unique circumstances of each case.”
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
Jamillo Dante Spight v. State of Minnesota, A15-2007 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jamillo Dante Spight v. State of Minnesota, A15-2007 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–87 (Minn. 2010) (citation omitted); (stating that “the factors identified in Gassler do not form a rigid test” and that “[d]ifferent factors may be dispositive in the unique circumstances of each case”).
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[T]he factors identified in Gassler do not form a rigid test,” and “[d]ifferent factors may be dispositive in the unique circumstances of each case.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We note that Warren involved multiple convictions of first-degree murder, which “is the most serious offense of which a defendant can be convicted in Minnesota.”
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
4(c) (2014); (noting that the court should consider whether a petitioner has complied with the 2-year time limit under subdivision 4(c) prior to determining whether the petitioner has qualified for an exception under subdivision 4(b)(2)).
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
Although it is clear that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes no obligation on the states to provide postconviction relief mechanisms, (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 556-57 (1987)), it is unclear what form of assistance, if any, must be provided when a state chooses to offer help to those seeking relief from convictions.
Fredrick Kemond Jackson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fredrick Kemond Jackson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Edward Wetsch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Edward Wetsch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Danny Lee Zinski v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Danny Lee Zinski v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Somlith Vongphasouk 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).
Hector Martinez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hector Martinez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
607 (Minn. 2012) (holding that the statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
whose convictions were not reviewed on direct appeal.”
Tha Phongvixay v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tha Phongvixay v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Due process requires only that every defendant be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted).
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 1 (concluding that time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2014