Cited by

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

475 citing documents.

Minn. 2021
see Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
John Stephen Woodward, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“All five criteria must be satisfied to obtain relief.”
Kenny Lee Reed, FKA: Gordon David Reese, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 162, 170 (Minn. 2012).
Jose Santoya Juarez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, 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.” d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, 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, 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 agains t logic and the facts in the record.”
Shareef Najeeaullah Shaheed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, 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 logi c and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Justin Lee Ironhawk, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Catherine Ann Moore, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Carlos Heard, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(articulating the same standard of review for the denial of a motion to correct a sentence).
Antonio Xavier Daniels, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bradley D. Fordyce, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
James Lindley Limper, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kenny Lee Reed, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Carl Adam Mulvihill, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Malik Jordan Olsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Markhel D. Franklin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Leonard Connell Brown, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dennis Charles Roberts, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” Riley v. State , (quotation omitted).
Deon Lashawn Mallett, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kelsey Anna Ballman, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
and that application of the exception is not time-barred.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
and that application of the exception is not time -barred.’” Roberts v. State , (), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Walter Johann Happel, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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
Wayne v. State 912 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2018
Riley v. State , , 167 (Minn. 2012).