Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sontoya v. State, 829 N.W.2d 602.

39 citing documents.

Ronald Lee Schober, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
are procedurally barred.”
Michael Arthur Rock, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-05 (Minn. 2013); , 233-34 (Minn. 2011).
Remona Lysa Brown, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(citing Knaffla, d at 741).
Michael James Rye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael James Rye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Claims that were raised on direct appeal or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are procedurally barred.” ().
Howard William Amos v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Howard William Amos v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
However, a Knaffla-barred claim may be considered if: “(1) the claim is novel; or (2) the interests of fairness and justice warrant relief.”
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A claim is not Knaffla barred if “(1) the claim is novel; or (2) the interests of fairness and justice warrant relief.”
Anthony Scott David Auginaush, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing Knaffla, d at 741); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Mario Pedro Moreno, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Claims that were raised on direct appeal, or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are procedurally barred.” Sontoya v. State , ( (holding that “where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief”)); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Pao Choua Xiong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
John Stephen Woodward, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Claims that were raised on direct appeal, or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are procedurally barred.” Sontoya v. State , (citing Knaffla, d at 741); see also Minn. 10 Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Lawrence Raymond Burns, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Claims that were raised on direct appeal, or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are procedurally barred.” (citing Knaffla, d at 741); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Christopher Lee Holloway, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When an individual files a petition for postconviction relief after a direct appeal is resolved, like here, “[c]laims that were raised on direct appeal, or were known or should have been known but were not raised on di rect appeal, are procedurally barred.” (d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976)); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Jonathon Michael Honeycutt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Claims that were raised on direct app eal, or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are procedurally barred.” Sontoya v. State , 6 (); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Joseph Harvey Bellanger, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Claims that were raised on direct appeal, or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are procedurally barred.” (citing Knaffla, d at 741); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Paul Ronny Barsness, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Arteco Marvell Rhodes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 “Claims that were raised on direct appeal, or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are procedurally barred.” Sontoya v. State , (); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Paul Ronny Barsness, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2016
Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 226 Minn. 2016
(stating that “[c]laims that were raised on direct appeal, or were known or should have been known but were not raised on direct appeal, are” Knaffla-barred).
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
Chaun Dubae Carridine v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2015
Chaun Dubae Carridine v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2015
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
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
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“Given all of these facts, we hold that Sontoya either knew or should have known about 4 trial counsel’s representation of the victim’s cousin, and his claim is therefore barred by the Knaffla rule.”).
State of Minnesota v. Tanya Lee Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tanya Lee Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
Matakis v. State 842 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matakis v. State 842 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
See, n. 3 (Minn.2013) (declining to address whether the exceptions to the Knaffla rule remain applicable to petitions for postconviction relief because the State did not raise the issue); , 8 n. 3 (Minn.2013) (declining to reach the *788 issue of "whether the Knaffla exceptions

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by