Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590.
-
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota
856 N.W.2d 287
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[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. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley
855 N.W.2d 269
Minn. 2014
(explaining the statement in question was “dicta” because the resolution of the question was not necessary to our ultimate holding).
- Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Carlson 845 N.W.2d 827 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State v. Carlson
845 N.W.2d 827
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A statute of limitation “operate[s] as [a] jurisdictional bar[ ] where the claim subject to the limitations period is purely statutory.”
- Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
- Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
- Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
-
Hooper v. State
838 N.W.2d 775
Minn. 2013
-07 (Minn.2012) (considering other issues presented on appeal after concluding that the limitations period in Minn.Stat.
- State v. Burrell 837 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2013
-
State v. Burrell
837 N.W.2d 459
Minn. 2013
(assuming without deciding that the Minnesota Constitution provides the right to one review); (explaining that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to appeal under the United States Constitution).
- State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
- Clifton v. State 830 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2013
-
Clifton v. State
830 N.W.2d 434
Minn. 2013
606 (Minn.2012) (concluding that the State waived the argument that Minn.Stat.
- Francis v. State 829 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2013
-
Francis v. State
829 N.W.2d 415
Minn. 2013
However, “the factors identified in Gassier do not form a rigid test” and “[djifferent factors may be dispositive in the unique circumstances of each ease.”
- State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-
State v. Amundson
828 N.W.2d 747
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-02, 606 (Minn.2012) (holding that the two-year time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd.
- Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
-
Berkovitz v. State
826 N.W.2d 203
Minn. 2013
(holding that Minn.Stat.
- Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
Vazquez v. State
822 N.W.2d 313
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
4(c), “does not operate as a jurisdictional bar.”
- Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
- Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
-
Wallace v. State
820 N.W.2d 843
Minn. 2012
Wallace’s -16 (Minn.2012), in which we held that the time bar does not violate a petitioner’s due-process rights.
- Pageau v. State 820 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
Pageau v. State
820 N.W.2d 271
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(concluding that the time limitation in section 590.01, subdivision 4(c) does not operate as a jurisdictional bar).
- Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
- Miller v. State 816 N.W.2d 547 Minn. 2012
-
Miller v. State
816 N.W.2d 547
Minn. 2012
We fully considered and rejected this argument in our decision in Carlton v. State, -17 (Minn.2012).
- Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012