Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Erickson v. State, 842 N.W.2d 314.

53 citing documents.

Alexis Lashun Suggs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Cedric Lamont Berry v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
Roosevelt Bartu, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Victor Cortez Shelton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that the court had “identified a non-exclusive list of factors to be considered”); (stating that “the factors identified in Gassler do not form a rigid test and different factors may be dispositive in the unique circumstances of each case” (quotation omitted)); (stating that “[w]hen determining whether it is in the interests of justice to consider an otherwise time- barred petition for postconviction relief, we may consider several factors” (quotation omitted)).
Alexander John Cookson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Tyler Leibfried, Relator, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Absent a compelling reason, we will not reconsider a claim that we have previously rejected in the same case.” Erickson v. State
Orlando Omar Castillo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
s such as “pro se status and limited educational attainment” could potentially “satisfy the interests of justice requirement.” See, e.g., Wayne, d at 920 (holding that these factors do not satisfy the interests-of-justice requirement “in the context of a petitioner who has previously filed a petition for postconviction relief that was not time-barred.”); (same); (same).
Bunrerth Mao, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Neal Curtis Zumberge, Minn. 2019
Brandyn Brett Phillips, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[A] postconviction court may summarily deny a claim that is time barred.”).
Joseph Paul Myers, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A16-1196 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1 (2016); Erickson v. State , (Mi nn.
Johnson v. County of Hennepin 903 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2017
Johnson v. County of Hennepin 903 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 2017
(“Absent a compelling reason, we will not reconsider a claim that we have previously rejected in the same case.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Pearson v. State 891 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2017
Pearson v. State 891 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2017
Kevin Terrance Hannon v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2017
Kevin Terrance Hannon v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2017
Jetaun Helen Wheeler v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jetaun Helen Wheeler v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo.”
Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
Kent Richard Jones v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2016
Kent Richard Jones v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2016
Jason Mark Musburger v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Mark Musburger v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (holding that the petitioner’s pro se status and limited educational attainment did not prevent him from filing in a timely manner).
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
“We review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo.”
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Calvin Boswell, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
Jason Lee Bolstad v. State of Minnesota 878 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2016
See Wayne, d at 920; (holding that “general prison policies” that made it more difficult for the petitioner to file his claim in a timely fashion did not constitute the sort of “extraordinary circumstance[s]” necessary to invoke equitable tolling).
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lovell Nahmor Oates v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
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
To satisfy this exception, a petitioner must allege: “(1) the existence of newly discovered evidence that could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence within the two-year time period for filing a postconviction petition, and (2) that the newly discovered evidence establishes the petitioner’s innocence by clear and convincing evidence.”
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015