Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown v. State, 895 N.W.2d 612.

68 citing documents.

Donald Dequai Crenshaw, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Michael Adam Davis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
16 “In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Andrew Vernard Glover v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
In determining whether a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a postconviction court accepts “the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Tyler Allan Cronquist, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Ashaunti Quantay Prowell v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Christopher Lee Konakowitz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Christopher Lee Konakowitz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted, a postconviction court must construe the facts “in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Jeramy John Wharton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Gabriel Robert Kimbrough, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In making this determination, “a [district] court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner .”
Bryce Dean Dirk, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court’s decision to deny “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Arthur Rafie Mullins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Arthur Rafie Mullins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Fidele Ndaruhutse v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fidele Ndaruhutse v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Demetrius Antonio Wynne Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The postconviction court abuses its discretion if its decision “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Tyler Todd Plaster, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review a district court’s denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” ().
Deontranelle Leslie Davis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
4 abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” Brown v. State
A22-0979 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” d 612, 618 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the fact s alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We review the “postconviction court’s legal determinations de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We review the “ [district] court’s legal determinations 3 de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.” Brown v. State , (citations omitted).
Weston Palmer Harbison, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
Matthias Jacob Gould, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Raymond Joseph Traylor, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Pao Choua Xiong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The petition must allege more than argumentative assertions without factual support.”
Jamia Lee Griffith, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Aka Lawrence Fualefeh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” Brown v. State
Hassan Isak Omar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To determine “whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Kenny Lee Reed, FKA: Gordon David Reese, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Because district courts must accept the allegations alleged in a postconviction petition as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the petitioner, and there is nothing in the record to contradict Reese’s allegation that A.J.T.’s affidavit was newly discovered evidence, Reese’s arguments concerning this affidavit were not procedurally barred.
Jose Santoya Juarez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We revi ew the “postconviction court’s legal determinations de novo, and its fa ctual findings for clear error.” Brown v. State
Dylan Matthew Deling, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review the “[district] court’s legal determinations de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.” (quotation omitted).
Andrew Will Alexander, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We review the “postconviction court’ s legal determinations de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.”
S’Emaj Avyiair Okongwu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“In determining whether an 4 evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When deciding whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the district court must “consider[] the facts alleged in the petition as true and construe[] them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous v iew of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
James Michael Soderbeck, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Emad Gh Al Rousan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But when considering whether to grant an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction petition, the “postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Larry Demetrius Pearson, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Christopher Lee Holloway, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kenny Lee Reed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court “considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Johnny Hernandez Perez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In doing so, this court reviews the “postconviction court’s legal determinations de novo , and its factual findings for clear error.” .