Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162.

475 citing documents.

Robert Bryant Salley, 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).
Jermaine Edward Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jermaine Edward Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
El-Shabazz, d at 574 ().
State of Minnesota v. John Kevin Melina Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Kevin Melina Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Howard William Amos v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Howard William Amos v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Our case law establishes that the new evidence should “render[] it more likely than not that no reasonable jury would convict.”
State of Minnesota v. James Lockhart Lang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. James Lockhart Lang Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael Walton Hinton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael Walton Hinton 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).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court “abuses its discretion w hen its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Casey Lee Frankl Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Casey Lee Frankl Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A postconviction court may deny a petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing 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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
William Demont White, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Deontranelle Leslie Davis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We review the postconviction court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo
Jamie Allen Andrews, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“All five criteria must be satisfied to obtain relief.”
Kawaskii Antonio Blanche, Minn. 2023
A district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the alleged facts, when viewed in a light most favorable to the petitioner, together with the arguments of the parties, “ ‘conclusively show ’ that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Riley v. State , (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating this court reviews the denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Donna Mae Bastyr, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Chris Marquis McMorris, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Emem Ufot Udoh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
John Thomas Owen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Joshua Stuart Vossen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Dinesh Mongar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Dane Michael Vandervoort, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.” d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell, Minn. 2022
see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Eligio Rodriguez Cerrito, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Robert Earl Leatherberry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Majed Issac Ijong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Riley v. State , d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012).
John Stephen Woodward, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“All five criteria must be satisfied to obtain relief.” Riley v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
Jesus Daniel Ibarra, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Charles Earl Strother, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A [district] court abuses its discretion when its 3 decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
Mo Savoy Hicks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Riley v. State , (quotation omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by