Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Vazquez v. State, 822 N.W.2d 313.

56 citing documents.

Michael James Rye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael James Rye v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Timothy Richard Gilles, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Maurice Lovell Anderson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We note that “the postconviction two-year limitations provision serves the public interest in finality.” Vazquez v. State
Fong Lee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The remedy that may be obtained by a motion to correct sentence “coexist[s] with the postconviction remedy.”
Lorenzo Damien Brewer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Robert Lee Crum, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
coexist[s] with the postconviction remedy.”
Andrew Wayne Clarke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 215 (determining that a claim challenging the district court’s findings of fact relevant to a sentence is not within the scope of rule 27.03 ), with Vazquez v. State , -19 (Minn. App. 2012) (determining that a sentence based upon an incorrect criminal -history score is an unauthorized sentence), and Reynolds, d at 130 (determining that a sentence that violates Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), is unauthorized by law).
Chester Vernon Jones, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Manuel Enrique Muro Martinez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Williams v. State 899 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court has also acknowledged that “the postconviction two -year limitations provision serves the public interest in finality, [but] that interest is not as strong when it is the finality of the sentence that is at issue rather than the finality of the conviction.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In reviewing the district court’s denial of post-conviction relief, including a denial based on the two-year statutory limit, we review issues of law de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joseph Fellman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joseph Fellman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
coexist[s] with the postconviction remedy.”
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Morris Gaye Kayee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Morris Gaye Kayee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
coexist[s] with the postconviction remedy.”
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 313, 317 (Minn. App. 2012).
Darwin Ray Battle-Bey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Darwin Ray Battle-Bey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rodney Thundercloud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rodney Thundercloud v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank Anthony Mendoza v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
German N. Salgado Velasquez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
German N. Salgado Velasquez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“In reviewing the district court’s denial of postconviction relief, including a denial based on the two-year statutory limit, we review issues of law de novo but will not reverse factual findings unless clearly erroneous.” -16 (Minn. App. 2012).
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Keith Allen Halland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terence Jerome Wilson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Keith Allen Halland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(reversing a district court’s dismissal of a properly- filed rule 27.03 motion when the district court treated the motion as a postconviction petition that was timed-barred under the two-year statute of limitations).
Larry Roosevelt Noble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Larry Roosevelt Noble v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4(a) (2012), but “‘the two-year time limit [in section 590.01, subdivision 4(a)] does not apply to motions properly filed under’ rule 27.03, subdivision 9.” Washington, d at 211 (alteration in original) (); (stating that a defendant cannot forfeit or waive review of an illegal sentence), review denied (Minn. 5 Sept.