Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota, 856 N.W.2d 287.

101 citing documents.

Robert Ian Agarano, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
and that application of the exception is not time-barred.’” (), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting the “weight of a suspected controlled substance may be proved directly with scientific evidence”), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2(a)(4).7 “The identity and weight of a suspected controlled substance may be proved directly with scientific evidence or, in certain situations, circumstantially with scientific or nonscientific evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Victor Cortez Shelton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Andersen, d at 428 (reasoning that the circumstances offered to explain the delay in filing postconviction petition, including “challenges in obtaining some documents” did not explain the six-year delay); (considering the interests-of-justice exception to the time-bar and concluding that the petitioner was at fault for the delay in filing his postconviction petition), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Harry Jerome Evans v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
See, WL 7693546, at *1 (Minn. App. Nov.
John Stephen Woodward, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A postconviction petitioner is not entitled to relief or an evidentiary hearing on an untimely petition unless [they] can demonstra te that [they satisfy] one of the statutory exceptions and that application of the exception is not time -barred.” Roberts v. State , (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
Jose Santoya Juarez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
and that application of the exception is not time-barred.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Courts have recognized that the identity of a suspected controlled substance “may be proved directly with scientific evidence or, in certain situations, circumstantially with scientific or nonscientific evidence.” , review denied (Minn. Jan.
Nathan Christopher Braun, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Kenny Lee Reed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Carl Adam Mulvihill, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
and that application of the exception is not time -barred.’” (quoting Riley v. State , ), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Michael Frederick Schmidt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
and that application of the exception is not time -barred.’” Roberts v. State , (), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Peter Louis John, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
4 (2016); review denied (Minn. Jan.
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Milton Joseph Budreau, III, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A postconviction petitioner is not entitled to relief or an evidentiary hearing on an untimely petition unless he can demonstrate that he satisfies one of the [ statutory] exceptions.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Maurice Lovell Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Lyndsey Rae Kidd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Charlie Junior Pryor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Lyndsey Rae Kidd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Charlie Junior Pryor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Jamal Abdi Madar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jamal Abdi Madar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-92 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Jan.
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
(reaching same conclusion on similar facts), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Michael Delaney Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Delaney Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court recently addressed an argument similar to that of appellant’s review denied (Minn. Jan.
David Lee Frazier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Lee Frazier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christopher Joseph Washington v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Akis argues that his “attorney did not act reasonably in light of all the circumstances because the attorney did not demand and review the underlying [SPPDCL] file in his case.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
Christopher Joseph Washington v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4(b)(2); (discussing application of the newly-discovered- evidence exception), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jovon Perez Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Arnold Fritzroy CoCo James, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jullius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Jullius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(discussing the discovery of systemic problems and subsequent audits of the SPPDCL), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Jovon Perez Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A person convicted of a crime who claims that the conviction violates his rights under the constitution or laws of the 3 United States or Minnesota may petition for postconviction relief unless direct appellate relief is available.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
Arnold Fritzroy CoCo James, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(–87 (Minn. 2010)), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Mark Oran Schorn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016