Cited by

(“[A] state district court has the authority to control the disposition of cases on its own dockets with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).

(citing Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006)).

(providing that if the state fails to raise certain time limits as an affirmative defense in a postconviction proceeding, the postconviction court has discretion to raise those limits on its own motion , but “the postconviction court must give the parties notice and afford them an opportunity to b

See, e.g., Kirckof Plumbing & –07 (Minn. 1975) (applying the statute of limitations in a suit against the State for wrongful withholding of liquidated damages); (holding that the limitations periods 9 in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subds.

And the supreme court has stated that it is well-established that courts have the authority “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants” and that “how this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interest and maintain an even balance.” 6 (quoting Landis v. N. Am.

Weitzel v. State , 7 (Minn. 2016); see also Carlton, d at 600 (“It is well established .

However, a “postconviction court has the discretion to consider the time limits on its own motion in order to control its docket.”

n.1 (Minn. 2016) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture).

n.1 (Minn. 2016) (explaining that waiver is the intentional abandonment of a known right).

(“[W]hen the State fails to 5 raise the time limits set forth in section 590.01, subdivision 4(a) and (c), the postconviction court has the discretion to consider the time limits on its own motion in order to control its docket.”).

(“Before ruling on the issue, however, the court must give notice to the parties and afford them the opportunity to be heard.”).

(“[A] state district court has the authority to control the disposition of cases on its dockets with economy of time an d effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).

See Weitzel v. State , (M inn.

554 n.1 (Minn. 2016) (“[Wjaiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.”).

“A defendant does not have an automatic right to withdraw a valid guilty plea.”