Cited by

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

69 citing documents.

Oscar Elias Padilla Jovel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
in the light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Donald Dequai Crenshaw v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Steven Jeffrey Mueller 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review a district court’s denial of postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” ().
Deontranelle Leslie Davis v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Weston Marshal Voeltz 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
State of Minnesota v. Brenda Marie Tucker (A22-0966), and Brenda Marie Tucker (A22-0979), vs. State of Minnesota 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 v. Mal Pauliet Tharjiath 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 v. Gail Lynn Schauer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We review the “postconviction court’s legal determinations de novo, and its factual findings for clear error.”
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Michael Johnson 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 v. Abdulahi Dahir Salad 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 v. Ashaunti Quantay Prowell 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Raymond Joseph Traylor v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The petition must allege more than argumentative assertions without factual support.”
Jamia Lee Griffith v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Aka Lawrence Fualefeh v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Jimmy Jay Hortiz 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 v. Shawn Merle Mechtel 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 v. Pierce Gerald Heston 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Emad Gh Al Rousan v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Daniel Negase Asefaw Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Christopher Lee Holloway v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. William Daniel Finley Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kenny Lee Reed v. State of Minnesota 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.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by