Cited by

In other words, “[a] petitioner knows or should know about that claim when he has information that allows him to make such an argument.” Id.; -97 (Minn. 2016) (concluding that the petitioner knew or should have known about his interests-of-justice claim, which stemmed from the district court’s response to a jury question, at the time of trial).

In contrast, if a defendant calls a witness and that witness invokes the right, the prosecution may seek an order compelling the witness to testify, and if the order is granted, the witness receives what is known as “use immunity.” See Minn. Stat. 22 § 609.09 (2024) (referred to as the “use-immunity statute”); d 493, 495 n.1 (Minn. 2016) (explaining procedures under the use-immunity statute); (concluding that the immunity granted under the use-immunity statute is coextensive with the Fifth Amend

He correctly notes that we have held that the statute of limitations may be equitably tolled under “extraordinary circumstances.” Bolstad v. State , d 493, 497 (Minn. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) .

Aili, d at 447-49, (applying this standard to the new-interpretation-of-law exception to the statutory filing deadline); (applying this standard to the interests-of- justice exception).

More details about Bolstad’s conviction are set forth in his direct appeal, State v. Bolstad (Bolstad I), –38 (Minn. 2004), and in his second postconviction petition appeal, Bolstad v. State (Bolstad II), –95 (Minn. 2016).

“A petitioner is not entitled to relief and ‘[n]o hearing is required if a petition is untimely under the postconviction statute of limitations.’ ” ().

Bolstad v. State , , 496 (Minn. 2016).

“A postconviction court’s determination of when a petitioner knew or should have known about his or her claim is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.”

Bolstad v. State , , 496 (Minn. 2016).

“A postconviction court’ s determination of when a petitioner knew or should have kno wn about his or her claim is reviewed und er a clearly erroneous standard.” Bolstad v. State

“A postconviction court’s determination of when a petitioner knew or should have known about his or her claim is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.”