Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162.
- Rondell Russell Camp v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Curtrez Darale Johnson
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
- Abdiel Josadac Aguilar-Pineda v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
Robert Ian Agarano v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
and that application of the exception is not time-barred.’” (), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
- Anthony B Graham v. Marie Houston, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Lee Treptow Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Lee Treptow
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A postconviction court abuses 3 its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
-
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Michaela Atterberry
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Under this standard, “a party’s evidence should be unequivocal, intrinsically probable and credible, and free from frailties.” (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”
-
Amos Menasa Cham v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012) (“An evidentiary hearing on a petition is mandated whenever material facts are in dispute which have not been resolved in the proceedings resulting in conviction and which must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.” (quotation omitted)).
- State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joel Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Paul Scott Seeman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Quitter
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But appellate courts “ review a postconviction court’s factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard, and do not reverse those determinations unless they are not factually supported by the record.”
-
Chris Marquis McMorris v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
7 on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
- Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
-
Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons v. State of Minnesota
Minn. 2025
(stating that clear error exists where determinations “are not factually supported by the record”).
- Adrian Dominic Riley v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
- Adrian Dominic Riley v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2025
- Travis Clay Andersen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Travis Clay Andersen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
Michael Arthur Rock v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
171-72 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that postconviction petitioner was not entitled to forensic DNA testing because testing was performed and disclosed before trial).
-
Ryan Grant v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
An evidentiary hearing is required only when “material facts are in dispute which have not been resolved in the proceedings resulting in conviction and which must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.” d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012) (quoting State ex rel.
-
Reginald Scott Hubbard v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
in dispute which ha[d] not been resolved in the proceedings resulting in conviction and which must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.” -68 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
- Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
- Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
-
Russell Vincent Winbush v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
see Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
- State of Minnesota v. James Demetrius Redd Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota v. Grant Anthony Judish
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
- Leroy Roderick Paul, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
-
Leroy Roderick Paul, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Minn. 2025
8 see Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
- State of Minnesota v. John Francis Thury Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota v. Semir Durgutovic (A24-0397), Semir Durgutovic (A24-1062), vs. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
-
Remona Lysa Brown v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that, if “the facts considered in the light most favorable to the petition, together with the arguments presented by the parties, conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” a district court may deny a postconviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearin
- Daniel John Wyatt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Connor Jerome Eischens v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts review findings of fact for clear error, and legal conclusions de novo
- State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Gerald Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Bryce Dean Dirk v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See id.; (describing standards when reviewing denials of postconviction relief).
-
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Violet Hollingsworth
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court “abuses its discretion when i ts decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
-
Christopher James Hayes v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(d 162, 168 (Minn. 2012)) (alteration in original).
-
Chad Alan Hoflock v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
4 DECISION Appellate courts review the “denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.” d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012).
- State of Minnesota v. Jacob Carl Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Jacob Carl Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Russell Lutz
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
- Duke Ogeto Maroko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Larry Jenson
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
-
John Louis Corrigan, Jr. v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
- Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
- Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Lee Haley
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).