Cited by

In its order, the district court stated, To establish the interests of justice Petitioner “must allege an injustice that caused the delay in filing the petition.”

conviction relief after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction or sentence.” 3 “Under the Knaffla rule, a postconviction claim that was raised, known, or should have been known at the time of the petitioner’s direct appeal will not be considered in a subsequent postconviction petition.” (citing Knaffla, d at 741).

“Under the Knaffla rule, a postconviction claim that was raised, known, or should have been known at the time of the petitioner’s direct appeal will not be considered in a subsequent postconviction petition.”

“The interests-of-justice exception is available only in rare and exceptional situations.”

Blanche has not alleged “an injustice that delayed the filing of the petition.” 5 4 The State also argues that Blanche’s claim fails to satisfy the fifth requirement of the newly discovered evidence exception, which requires that the petitioner show that the evidence establishes by the clear and convincing standard that petitioner is innocent of the offenses for which he w

Put differently, to establish the interests of justice referred to in subdivision 4(b)(5), the petitioner “must allege an injustice that caused the delay in filing the petition.”

A claim under the interests-of-justice exception “must relate to an injustice that delayed the filing of the petition, not to the substantive merit of the petition.” ().

4(b)(5) (2020) ; see also Hooper v. State , (holding that an interests -of-justice claim “must relate to an injustice that delayed the filing of the petition, not to the substantive merit of the petition”); Sanchez v. State , (same).

A claim under the interests-of-justice exception “must relate to an injustice that delayed the filing of the petition, not to the substantive merit of the petition.” Odell v. State , (quoting Hooper v. State , ).

Hooper v. State (Hooper II), (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See, (“A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that ca rries a presumption of regularity.” (quotation omitted)).

To establish the exception a petitioner “must allege an injustice that caused the delay in filing the petition.” d 138, 142 (Minn. 2016).

“The interests-of-justice exception is available only in rare and exceptional situations.” d 138, 142 (Minn. 2016).

This exception is only available “in rare and exceptional situations.”

“The interests-of-justice exception is available only in rare and exceptional situations.”

Hooper v. State , , 142 (Minn. 2016).

A claim under this exception "must relate to an injustice that delayed the filing of the petition, not to the substantive merit of the petition," Hooper v. State , , 142 (Minn. 2016), and applies only in "exceptional and extraordinary situations," Carlton v. State , , 607 (Minn. 2012) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Hooper v. State , , 142 (Minn. 2016).

5 To meet the interests-of-justice prong, “[t]he claim must relate to an injustice that delayed the filing of the petition, not to the substantive merit of the petition.”

Hooper v. State , , 142 (Minn. 2016).

But “[a] petition for postconviction relief after a direct appeal has been completed may not be based on grounds that could have been raised on direct appeal of a conviction.” Id.; (explaining procedural bar known as the Knaffla rule); Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252, d at 741 (establishing that “where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction rel

Hooper v. State , , 142 (Minn. 2016) (citing Sanchez v. State , , 557 (Minn. 2012) ).

Hooper v. State , , 142 (Minn. 2016) (citing Sanchez , d at 557 ).

“The postconviction court may summarily deny a petition without holding a hearing if the petition, files, and records conclusive ly show that the petiti oner is not entitled to relief.”

Postconviction courts may “deny a petition without holding a hearing if the petition, files, and records conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”

d 138, 141 (Minn. 2016).

Under the interests-of-justice exception, the petitioner must identify “an injustice that delayed the filing of the petition.”

Under the interests-of-justice exception, the petitioner must identify “an injustice that delayed the filing of the petition.”

“The postconviction court may summarily deny a petition without holding a hearing if the petition, files, and records conclusively show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”

“A claim arises when the petitioner objectively knew or should have known 3 that he had a claim.” (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).