Cited by

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

475 citing documents.

Fredrick Kemond Jackson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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.” (quotations omitted).
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Victoria Lynn Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Todd Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Steven Todd Parker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Victoria Lynn Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The 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.” d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quotation and citation omitted).
Jerome Deon Nunn v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 2015
Jerome Deon Nunn v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 230 Minn. 2015
Reginald Bruce Long v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Reginald Bruce Long v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against 3 logic and the facts in the record.”
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 866 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2015
Michael Wayne v. State of Minnesota 866 N.W.2d 917 Minn. 2015
“A postconviction court may summarily deny a petition for postconviction relief when the 3 petition is time barred.” (-71 (Minn. 2012)).
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Edward Wetsch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brandon Oneil Sturdivant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wilfred Carl Hudson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mark Edward Wetsch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012).
Brandon Oneil Sturdivant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Mathew Erickson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Mathew Erickson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doris Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Doris Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.” (citations and quotation omitted).
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota 865 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of the corroborating evidence requirement is to protect against the possibility that a statement will be fabricated to exculpate the accused.”
Lynne A. Torgerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynne A. Torgerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2015
Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.” (citations and quotation omitted).
Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION A denial of postconviction relief is reviewed 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).
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
As we stated in Riley v. State, “the postconviction court must determine whether the facts considered in the light most favorable to the petition, together with the arguments presented by the parties, ‘conclusively shov/ that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd.
Alina Marie Konczak v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015