Cited by

4 a petitioner whose claims are time-barred is not entitled to relief, a district court “may summarily deny a petition for postconviction relief when the petition is time barred.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.

4(b)(5); d 917, 920 (Minn. 2015) .

Because Martin filed this appeal more than two years after July 31, 2007, and he knew or should have known of the cond uct of the prosecutor and his own counsel more than two records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.”

See Wayne v. State , (noting that a postconviction petition is a “creature of state statute, .

A district court “must hold an evidentiary hearing” on a postconviction petition “ ‘[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.’ ” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (refusing to address argument where case decided on other grounds).

Wayne v. State ( Wayne VII ), , 919 (Minn. 2015).

Appellant also claims that the district court erred when it determined that under Wayne v. State , the claim of actual innocenc e in her postconviction petition is subject to the two -year statute of limitations in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (2016).

“A postconviction court may summarily 7 deny a petition for postconviction relief when the petition is time barred.” (quotation omitted).

“A postconviction court may summarily deny a petition for postconviction relief when the petition is time barred.” (quotation omitted).

But “[a] postconviction court may summarily deny a petition for postconviction relief when the petition is time barred.” (quotation omitted).

to the reason the petition was filed after the 2-year 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) ( ).

Evidentiary hearing “A postconviction court may summarily deny a petition for postconviction relief when the petition is time barred.” (quotation omitted).

Recently, in Wayne v. State, we “rejected the argument that a petitioner’s pro se status and limited educational attainment satisfy the ‘interests of justice’ requirement of subdivision 4(b)(5), at least in the context of a petitioner who has previously filed a petition for postconviction relief that was not time-barred.” d 917, 920 (Minn. 2015).

n was filed after the 2-year time limit in subdivision 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 ( ).

See Wayne v. State (Wayne II), d 446, 448 (Minn. 1993); Wayne v. State (Wayne III), Wayne v. State (Wayne IV), Wayne v. State (Wayne V), Wayne v. State (Wayne VI), Wayne v. State (Wayne VII), -21 (Minn. 2015).