Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Paul James Steichen Minn. 2026
this general rule of applicability: we apply a new rule retroactively if it (1) “places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe”; or (2) “requires the observance of those procedures that are … implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” in other words, “watershed rules of criminal procedure.” (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 307, 311 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
11 It is true that “the precise contours of our supervisory power are not easily delineated.” (Pa ul H. Anderson, J., dissenting), and abrogated by Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
2 Thompson filed a federal habeas petition rather than a
Daryll Christian Strom, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
By contrast, a new procedural rule is a new rule that “‘regulate[s] only the manner of determining the defendant’s culpability.’” (quoting Schriro, 542 U.S. at 353, 124 S. Ct. at 2523).
State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
(holding that Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct.
Prentis Cordell Jackson v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 2016
Jovon Perez Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jovon Perez Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4 We review “the denial of a petition for postconviction relief without a hearing for an abuse of discretion.”
Michael Diori Tillman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Diori Tillman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review a postconviction court’s “denial of a petition for postconviction relief without a hearing for an abuse of discretion.”
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Charles Cibulka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Charles Cibulka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5 (quoting Schriro, 542 U.S. at 353, 124 S. Ct. at 2523).
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Victoria Lynn Robinson 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
We review “the denial of a petition for postconviction relief without a hearing for an abuse of discretion.”
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
Alina Marie Konczak v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alina Marie Konczak v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review “the denial of a petition for postconviction relief without a hearing for an abuse of discretion.”
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In particular, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
Kim Thul Ouk v. State 847 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2014
Kim Thul Ouk v. State 847 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2014
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
Because the postconviction court’s and the circumstances of this case do not warrant granting relief to Roman Nose under our supervisory powers to ensure the fair administration of justice, we reverse the postconviction court’s January 28, 2012 order and reinstate the original sentence of LWOR.