Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota, 862 N.W.2d 33.

152 citing documents.

Robert Ian Agarano, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
T he “petitioner’s allegations must be more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
n.6 (Minn. 2015) (denying state’s motion to strike as moot because the information the state sought to strike was not relevant to determining the outcome of the appeal).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Wayne Wells Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jesse James Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jesse James Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The state asserted that surveillance video and photographs would show that, on March 12, 2022, Niesen entered a Kwik Trip convenience 1 “An Alford plea is a guilty plea in which a defendant maintains his innocence but pleads guilty because the evidence is sufficient to support a jury’s determination of guilt.” n.2 (Minn. 2015) (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38 (1970)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that an appellate court reviews a district court’s denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion).
, A22-0290 Minn. 2023
Kristopher Lee Roybal, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Anthony Scott David Auginaush, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Thomas Robert Tichich, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” Matakis v. State , (quotation omitted).
Antonio Terrell Beasley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Eddie Markeith Frazier, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Matakis v. State , d 33, 36 (Minn. 2015).
Eligio Rodriguez Cerrito, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The state relies on Matakis v. State to argue that particular language is not required as long as the defendant acknowledges, as Matakis did, that the state “would have sufficient evidence to find you guilty if the matter went to trial.” (alteration in original).
Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kenny Lee Reed, FKA: Gordon David Reese, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A20-1588 Minn. 2021
–41 (2015); cf. Minn. R. Crim.
Emmanuel Jentzen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Antonio Deandre Johnson, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The 8 appellate court reviews legal issues de novo, but its review of factual issues “is limited to whether there is sufficient ev idence in the record to su stain the postconviction court’s findings.” (quotation omitted).
Lawrence Raymond Burns, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Matthew Keely Hartley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Frank Timothy Newton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We review legal issues de novo, but our review of factual issues is “limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” Matakis v. State , (quotation omitted).
Terry Lee Clauthier, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Rhonda Renee Jones, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Esteban Trevino, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Bolus Andre Dimbiti, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Vollie Andre Brown, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Fredrick Dewayne Hines, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
James Lindley Limper, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” Matakis v. State , (quotation omitted).
James Leon Nordrum, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dean Aaron Anderson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jose Angel Trevino, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Elwin Louis Klimek, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N “We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
John Louis Corrigan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sakariya Ali Aden, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We review legal issues de novo, but on factual issues our review is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” (citation and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Oji Konata Markham, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Shawn Richard Burrington, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Arteco Marvell Rhodes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Yusuf Ahmed Yusuf, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Theodore Pierre Jerry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We review legal issues de novo, but on factual issues our review is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court ’s findings.” (quotation omitted).
James Donald Dahl, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dane Joseph Riley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dementry James Loyd, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Walter Johann Happel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Steven James Hayes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N We “review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Matakis v. State
Travis Lee Keller, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018