Cited by

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

152 citing documents.

Jeremy Richard Ullrich, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Matakis v. State , , 36 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Vance v. State , , 512 (Minn. 2008) ).
State v. Ortega-Rodriguez 920 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2018
Terry Reynolds, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Abraham Deng Woi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The accuracy requirement exists to protect a defendant from pleading 3 guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of if he were to go to trial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The accuracy requirement exists to prot ect a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of if he were to go to trial.” (quotation omitted).
Francisco Cleofus Mountain, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Byron Kenneth Anderson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(a defendant’s acknowledgement that he “could” be found guilty of an offe nse was sufficient for an Alford plea when a reading of the transcript indicated he had “also” agreed that a jury “would” have sufficient evidence to find him guilty).
David Walt Studanski, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Paul Miguel Engen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Berry Alan Willis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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
Antonio Xavier Daniels, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Matakis v. State
Eric John Henderson-Bey, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We “will not reverse an order unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).
Peter Louis John, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts “review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We will not reverse an order unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).
A17-0708 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The supreme court has “held that there are three prerequisites to a valid guilty plea: it must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent (i.e. knowingly and understandingly made).” (quotation omitted).
William Eduardo Fajardo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Matakis v. State , (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[This court] will not reverse an order unless the pos tconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” Matakis v. State , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We will not reverse an order unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous vi ew of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kauser Mohamoud Yusuf, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Sharon Marie O’Boyle, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A postconviction court abuses its discretion if it bases “its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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.” (citations omitted).
Pearson v. State 891 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2017
Pearson v. State 891 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2017
Legal issues are reviewed 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.” ().
Brent Lanier Lynch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Otis Rodney Elder, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A postconviction court abuses its 6 discretion if it bases “its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Steven Lynn Oppel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Reversal is required only where “the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kenneth Jerome Brunner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A decision will not be reversed “unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or 4 capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We affirmed, concluding that Matakis’s “petition does not allege any facts necessary to justify the relief he seeks and its promise of a later pleading is insufficient.” d 689, 693 (Minn. App. 2014), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A]n evidentiary hearing is not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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 5 omitted).
Justin Stephen Ries v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Justin Stephen Ries v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ronald Aaron McCord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ronald Aaron McCord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).