Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wallace v. State, 820 N.W.2d 843.

33 citing documents.

Alexander Nelson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We have previously determined that an appeal is frivolous in the context of a fee- waiver request if the appeal is “without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for a modification or reversal of existing law.” Maddox, d at 139 (quotation omitted); (concluding that a postconviction petition is frivolous “if it is perfectly apparent, without argument, that the claims in the petition lack an objective, good -faith basis in law or fact”); Minn. R.
Travis Widner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding that a postconviction petition is frivolous “if it is perfectly apparent, without argument, that the claims in the petition lack an objective, good-faith basis in law or fact”); Maddox v. Dep’t of Hum.
Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell, Minn. 2022
Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Minn. 2021
see also Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2020) (instructi ng courts when reviewing postconviction petitions to “liberally construe the petition” and to “look to the substance thereof and waive any irregularities or defects in form”).
Emmanuel Jentzen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A petition is frivolous “if it is perfectly apparent, wit hout argument, that the claims in the petition lack an objective, good-faith basis in law or fact.”
Jonah James Hawkins, petitioner, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining 6 that if petitioner “fails to meet either of those requirements, then his petition is time barred and we will not consider the merits of his claims”).
Walter Johann Happel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We acknowledge that postconviction petitions should be “liberally construe[d]” and courts must “look to the substance thereof and waive any irregularities or defects in form.” Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2018); ( noting that court s must liberally construe postconviction petition s).
Jeremia Joseph Loper, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
and shall look to the substance thereof and waive any irregularities or defects in form.” Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2016); (noting that a postconviction court must liberally construe a petition in determining whether the petitioner has invoked an exception for failing to timely assert a claim).
Fox v. State 913 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 2018
Fox v. State 913 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 2018
See Wallace v. State , , 849 (Minn. 2012) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2016) ("The court shall liberally construe the petition....").
Wayne v. State 912 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2018
Wayne v. State 912 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2018
(citing Wallace v. State , , 850 n.3 (Minn. 2012) ).
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
Otto v. Wright Cnty. 910 N.W.2d 446 Minn. 2018
See Associated Builders , d at 299-302 (reviewing the history of our decisions); see also Wallace v. State , , 852 (Minn. 2012) (rejecting a challenge under the Single Subject Clause); Townsend , d at 13-14 (same).
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that claim is “indisputably meritless” when record completely contradicts it).
Derrick Delmar Brocks v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2016
Derrick Delmar Brocks v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2016
The interests-of-justice exception requires that the petition not be “frivolous,” and that its belated consideration be in the “interests of justice.” d 843, 849 (Minn. 2012); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
a petitioner must satisfy two requirements: (1) that the petition is not frivolous, and (2) that the petition is in the interests of justice.” (quotations omitted).
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
a petitioner must satisfy two requirements: (1) that the petition ‘is not frivolous,’ and (2) that the petition ‘is in the interests of justice.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
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
A petition is frivolous when “it is perfectly apparent, without argument, that the claims in the petition lack an objective, good-faith basis in law or fact.”
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
Staunton v. State 842 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2014
Staunton v. State 842 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2014
Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
Berkovitz v. State 826 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 2013
(citing Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd.