DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miles v. State, 800 N.W.2d 778.

27 citing documents.

  • Jermaine Edward Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Jermaine Edward Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    Rather, the petitioner is required to sufficiently allege the existence of evidence which, if true, would establish the petitioner’s innocence by clear and convincing evidence.” -84 (Minn. 2011) (emphasis added).
  • Lincoln Lamar Caldwell, Minn. 2022
    we stated that “unless the newly discovered evidence would on its face prove the petitioner’s innocence by a clear and convincing standard, the petitioner has not met the requirements” of section 590.01, subdivision 4(b)(2).
  • John Steven Martin, Minn. 2022
    The law, when enacted in 2005, also provided: “Any person whose conviction became final before August 1, 2005, shall have two years after [August 1, 2005] to file a petition for pos tconviction relief.” (quoting Act of Ju ne 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 14, § 13, 2005 Minn. Laws 1080, 1097–98) (alteration in original).
  • Kenny Lee Reed, FKA: Gordon David Reese, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • A20-0206 A20-0228 A20-0229 Minn. 2021
    d at 560 ; –84 (Minn. 2011) (interpreting the “newly discovered evidence” exception 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
    Miles v. State , , 784 (Minn. 2011) ; see also Laine v. State , , 638 (Minn. 2010) ("[A] memorandum written by a defense investigator declaring that a witness provided different information to the investigator than the witness provided at trial [is] insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing."
  • Keith Henderson, Minn. 2018
    A petitioner is not required to establish that the evidence proves his innocence, but rather must “sufficiently allege the existence of evidence, which, if true, would establish the petitioner’s innocence by clear and convincing evidence.” (second alteration added).
  • Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
  • 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
    Instead, establishing “actual innocence” requires the petitioner to prove it is “more likely than not that no reasonable jury would convict.” Id.; (holding that a petitioner must demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence “on its face” would prove the petitioner’s innocence by a clear and convincing standard).
  • Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
  • Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
  • Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
  • Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
    State v. Ferguson (Ferguson I), (applying the indicia-of-trustworthiness standard from witness-recantation claims to claims involving newly discovered evidence).
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
    Miles v. State (Miles II)
  • Clifton v. State 830 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2013
  • Clifton v. State 830 N.W.2d 434 Minn. 2013
    When we review “the decisions] of the postconviction court, we review questions of law de novo.”
  • Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
  • Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
    5 See Act of June 2, 2005, ch. *556 136, art. 14, § 13, 2005 Minn. Laws 901 , 1098
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
    The legislation amending the statute was effective as of August 1, 2005, and provides that “[a]ny person whose conviction became final before August 1, 2005, shall have two years after the effective date of [the amendment] to file a petition for postconvietion relief.” See Act of June *600 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 14, § 13, 2005 Minn. Laws 901 , 1098
  • Bee Yang v. State 805 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Bee Yang v. State 805 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    See, e.g., Rickert, d at 238, 242 (holding individual met subdivision 4(c) filing requirement, although his subdivision 4(a) filing deadline expired on August 18, 2008, because his subdivision 4(b)(5) claim due to late transcript delivery arose by August 2008 and his petition was timely filed in October 2008); 784-85 (Minn.2011) (holding individual could meet subdivision 4(c) filing requirement, although his 4(a) filing deadline expired in August 2007, because his potential subdivision 4(b)(2) c