Cited by

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

476 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jasmine Sabrea Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Riley v. State , (quotation omitted).
Minn. 2021
see Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“All five criteria must be satisfied to obtain relief.”
Kenny Lee Reed, FKA: Gordon David Reese v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 162, 170 (Minn. 2012).
Jose Santoya Juarez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Stacie Rebecca Corbett Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court “abuses its discretion whe n 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. Deandre ONeil Jackman 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.” d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court abuses its discretion when its “decisio n 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. Shaniese Latrice Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court abuses its discretion when its “decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is agains t logic and the facts in the record.”
Shareef Najeeaullah Shaheed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Stillwell Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The 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.” (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Davion Lee Jones 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 logi c and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Justin Lee Ironhawk v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Catherine Ann Moore v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is ba sed on an erroneous view of the law or is 8 against logic and the f acts in the record.” Riley v. State
Minn. 2020
We review the “denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.” (quoting Riley v. State , (M inn.
Douglas Edwin Minor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A postconviction court abuses its di scretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is agains t logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Gary Lee Burnett v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(articulating the same standard of review for the denial of a motion to correct a sentence).
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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 v. Shawn Clarke Spottswood Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bradley D. Fordyce v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
James Lindley Limper v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kenny Lee Reed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-71 (Minn. 2012) (affirming postconviction court’s summary denial of 5 petition because petitioner failed to demonstrate an exception applied).
Preston Ryan Lee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Carl Adam Mulvihill v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
and that application of the exception is not time -barred.’” (quoting Riley v. State , ), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Jose Angel Trevino v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Malik Jordan Olsen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Markhel D. Franklin v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Leonard Connell Brown, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dennis Charles Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Deandre Johnson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” Riley v. State , (quotation omitted).
Deon Lashawn Mallett v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kelsey Anna Ballman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“ 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).
Gary Lee Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
and that application of the exception is not time-barred.”
State of Minnesota v. Maslah Abdirahman Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Generally, a person convicted of a crime who claims the conviction violates his rights under the constitution or laws of the United States or Minnesota may file a petition for postconviction relief.” see Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
and that application of the exception is not time -barred.’” Roberts v. State , (), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Buk Gaak Gany Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Walter Johann Happel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N I. Legal Standard We review a denial of postconviction relief to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by making a decision that “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
John Everette Pierce v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
Jeremy Richard Ullrich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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 v. Fred Banjo Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“The purpose of the corroborating evidence requirement is to protect against the possibility that a statement will be fabricated to exculpate the accused.”).
Jackson v. State 919 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2018
Jackson v. State 919 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 2018
Riley v. State , , 167 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Stands Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A 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.”
State of Minnesota v. Deddrick Terrell Whitaker Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Dobbins, d at 153 (determining that the absence of corroborating evidence weighed against admission of hearsay statement when most evidence contradicted the statement, even though some evidence corroborated it); (“The purpose of the corroborating evidence requirement is to protect against the possibility that a statement will be fabricated to exculpate the accused.”).
Mike Sanchez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[A] petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the petition ‘[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
Abraham Deng Woi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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).
Jennifer Natalie Bernard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This court applies a clear -error standard of review to a post- conviction court’s findings of fact and will not reverse the post-conviction court’s decision unless its findings “‘are not factually supported by the record.” Nelson, d at 858 (quoting Riley v. State , ).
Wayne v. State 912 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2018