Cited by

And, upon review, the record itself “lacks any evidence suggesting the mental disease precluded a timely assertion of [her] claim.”

The district court will not be reversed unless it has “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).

The district court will not be reversed unless it has “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 4 omitted).

The district court 4 will not be reversed unless it has “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).

We will not reverse the district court unless it has “exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an 4 erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has “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.”

7 (Minn. 2015) (explaining that a mental-health illness must make the petitioner unable to assert a timely claim).

at 569 (quoting Brown v. State , ).

“We [will] not reverse the postconviction court 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.” Brown v. State , (quotation omitted).

An appellate court will “not reverse the postconviction court unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner, based on its rulings on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

A district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a petition for postconviction relief unless it has “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.” (quoting Brown v. State , ).

The interests -of-justice exception is “triggered by an injustice that caused the petitioner to miss the primary postconviction deadline, not the substantive merits of the petition.”

Appellate courts “do not revers e the postconviction court unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner, based its rulings on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

We will “not reverse the postconviction court unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

“We do not reverse the postconviction court unless the postconviction court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner, based its rulings on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

Legal issues are reviewed de novo, but factual matters are reviewed only to determine “whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the postconviction court’s findings.” Brown v. State

“‘[A]ctual innocence’ requires the petitioner to prove it is more likely than not that no reasonable jury would convict.” (quotation omitted).

“A postconviction court need not grant a hearing on a claim if the files and records of the 4 proceeding conclusively establish that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”

Rhodes v. State , , 786 (Minn. 2016) (quoting Brown v. State , , 786 (Minn. 2015) ).

Brown v. State , , 786 (Minn. 2015).

" Brown v. State , , 786 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Reed v. State , , 729 (Minn. 2010) ).

We will reverse a postconviction court if the 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.’ ” Brown v. State , (quoting Reed v. State , ).

Brown v. State , , 786 (Minn. 2015).

A postconviction court does not abuse its discretion unless it has “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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This exception is triggered by “an injustice that caused the petitioner to miss the primary postconviction deadline, not the substantive merits of the petition.”

‘“[A]ctual innocence’ requires the petitioner to prove it is more likely than not that no reasonable jury would convict.” (quotation omitted).

This excepti on applies when the petitioner establishes that “the petition is not frivolous and is in the interests of justice.” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.

“We [will] not reverse the postconviction court unless the post-conviction 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.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Brown v. State , see Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

see Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

A postcon-viction court abuses its discretion when it has “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.” ().

A postconviction court abuses its discretion only when it has “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.” ().