Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesota, 863 N.W.2d 781.

69 citing documents.

Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
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.” ().
Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 2016
Lane Francis Weitzel v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 2016
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
Derrick Trevor Griffin v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2016
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.’ ” ().
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
David Lee Frazier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David Lee Frazier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
r time limit in subdivision 4(a), not the substantive claims in the petition,” and that “the interests-of-justice exception is triggered by an injustice that caused the petitioner to miss the primary deadline in subdivision 4(a), not the substance of the petition.” Sanchez, d at 557 (emphasis in original) ( ).
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Dean Ligtenberg v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-88 (Minn. 2015) (noting that, under the innocence prong, petitioner must prove “it is more likely than not that no reasonable jury would [have] convict[ed]”(quotation omitted)).
Baron Montero Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Baron Montero Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
A postcon-viction 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.”
Antoine Goodman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Antoine Goodman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
8 4(a), not the substantive claims in the petition,” and that “the interests-of-justice exception is triggered by an injustice that caused the petitioner to miss the primary deadline in subdivision 4(a), not the substance of the petition.” Sanchez, d at 557 ( ).
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015