Cited by

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

101 citing documents.

Michael Diori Tillman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Oran Schorn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thus, if appellant is unable to “demonstrate that an exception applies and that application of the exception is timely, the postconviction court may summarily deny the petition as untimely.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
Michael Diori Tillman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
that application of the exception is not time-barred.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Gregory Lee Cobbins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gregory Lee Cobbins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
for which the petitioner was convicted.” (quotation omitted); Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Monda Thao v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Julius Antwon Coleman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(reaching same 5 conclusion on similar facts in reliance on, among other things, Minn. Stat. § 611.21(a) (2004), Minn. R. Crim.
Monda Thao v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 Appellant argues that her “attorney did not act reasonably in light of all the circumstances because she did not demand and review the underlying SPPDCL file in her case.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(discussing the discovery of systemic problems and subsequent audits of the SPPDCL), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- 89 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Jermaine Kershawn Perry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jermaine Kershawn Perry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that SPPDCL problems are not newly discovered evidence), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Kim Marie Robberstad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Kim Marie Robberstad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Ramon Jimenez Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ramon Jimenez Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“If the petitioner does not demonstrate that an exception applies and that application of the exception is timely, the postconviction court may summarily deny the petition as untimely.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
Antoine Goodman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antoine Goodman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellant contends that her “attorney did not act reasonably in light of all the circumstances because the attorney did not demand and review the underlying [SPPDCL] file in her case.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
Megan Marie Kochendorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Megan Marie Kochendorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.
Ky Antoinette Word v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ky Antoinette Word v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(on similar facts, denying postconviction petition for failure to exercise due diligence), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Sara Elaine Katra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sara Elaine Katra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Victoria Lynn Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Victoria Lynn Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A person convicted of a crime who claims that the conviction violates his rights under the constitution or laws of the United States or Minnesota may petition for postconviction relief unless direct appellate relief is available.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Jan.
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
7 -92 (Minn. App. 2014) (considering a postconviction claim of newly discovered evidence following a guilty plea), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
[and] without any assertion that the crime lab erred in his particular case.” This court recently addressed a review denied (Jan.
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In this case, the postconviction court found that appellant’s “attorney could have discovered the problems [with SPPDCL] by seeking documents regarding the lab’s procedures and protocols for testing controlled substances,” and that “the evidence was discoverable with due diligence.” This court recently discussed a review denied (Jan.
Alina Marie Konczak v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alina Marie Konczak v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Jan.
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(reaching same conclusion on similar facts in reliance on, inter alia, Minn. Stat. § 611.21(a), Minn. R. Crim.
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-91 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Jan.
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015