Cited by

Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if “we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” 6 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

(stating that a postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is against logic and the facts in the record).

Leal “bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.”

“A petitioner bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.”

“A petitioner bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.”

“A petitioner bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.”

Castillo provides no authority for his argument that the state must notify individuals of potential postconviction claims; under Minnesota law it is the petitioner who “bears the burden to [justify] postconviction relief.”

“A petitioner bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.”

We afford “great deference to a postconviction court’s findings of fact and will not reverse the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

“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.” (quotation omitted).

the burden of proof of the facts alleged in the petition shall be upon the petitioner to establish the facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” (“[ T]he postconviction statute makes clear that the defendant, the party bringing the petition, generally bears the burden of proof [at an evidentiary hearing].”); 10 (“A petitioner bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.”).

(holding that an argument is Knaffla-barred because the petitioner failed to explain “why [the] argument was not available on direct appeal” and “why his failure to raise [the] argument should be excused”); (“A petitioner bear s the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.”).

6 It is generally correct, as the state notes, that the petitioner in a postconviction matter “bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the eviden ce that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.” see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

3 (2016) ("Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the burden of proof of the facts alleged in the petition shall be upon the petitioner...."); see also Tscheu v. State , , 403 (Minn. 2013) (noting that the defendant bears the burden of proof to show an entitlement to relief); Hummel v. State , , 564 (Minn. 2000) (same).

.”); (noting that the defendant bears the burden of proof to show an entitlement to relief ); Hummel v. State , (same).

“A petitioner bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that facts exist that warrant postconviction relief.” see Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.