Cited by

(concluding that appellant was not entitled to relief “because he failed to prove that the State substantially interfered with the decisions made by his witnesses about whether to testify at the postconviction hearing”).

(explaining appellate courts may review a “previously unaddressed issue” when it involves a “legal question and the parties had an opportunity to brief the question”).

(explaining that appellate courts may review “previously unaddressed issue[s]” when they “involve[] a legal question and the parties had an opportunity to brief the question”).

See Gauster, d at 508; (stating that a party is not disadvantaged by a court’s 18 consideration of an issue for the first time on appeal “when the previously unaddressed issue involved a legal question and the parties had an opportunity to brief the question”).

“If there is sufficient evidence to support a postconviction court’s finding, the finding will stand.”

See McKenzie 7 v. State, (noting that an appellate court may decide an issue not determined by the district court under certain circumstances) .

Reviewing courts look with disfavor on petitions for postconviction relief “founded on alleged recantations unless there are extraordinary and unusual circumstances.” (noting that motions for a new trial based on a re cantation are looked on with disfavor as recantations can lack trustworthiness).

McKenzie v. State , , 875 (Minn. 2015).

An appellate court may consider a previously unaddressed issue if it involves “a legal question and the parties had an opportunity to brief the question.” d 865, 872 (Minn. 2015).

The court may, however, “decide an issue not determined by a [district] court where that question is decisive of the entire controversy and where there is no possible advantage or disadvantage to either party in not having a prior ruling on the question.” d 865, 872 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).