Cited by

60 citing documents.

Charlie Junior Pryor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Charlie Junior Pryor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
requires more than mere uncertainty about a petitioner’s guilt.” (quotation omitted).
Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 2016
Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 2016
5 Specifically, they were enacted “in response to a dramatic increase in the number of postconviction petitions, many of which involved old claims brought years after a conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.” , 783 n. 2 (Minn.2016).
Jamal Abdi Madar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jamal Abdi Madar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “review[s] a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as the denial of an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
Jamillo Dante Spight v. State of Minnesota, A15-2007 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jamillo Dante Spight v. State of Minnesota, A15-2007 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “review[s] a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as the denial of an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Under the clear and convincing standard, the proffered evidence must be unequivocal, intrinsically probable, and free from frailties.” (citation omitted).