Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Pearson v. State, 891 N.W.2d 590.

210 citing documents.

Melissa Lynn Hanson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
George Dudley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
George Cornelius Watkins, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Alexander James Ray, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotations and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Matthew Prescott Beale, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Chris Marquis McMorris, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Tyler Douglas Flantz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Skipintheday, d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017) (stating that appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review to legal issues when reviewing the denial of a petition for postconviction relief).
Matthew Howard Isensee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” Pearson v. State , (quotation and citation omitted).
Danny Hamilton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Yaasiin Aweis Isxaaq, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
John Thomas Owen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Orlando Omar Castillo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5 Appellate courts “review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotations and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 we review issues of fact for clear error, Pearson v. State , and we review any “embedded issues of law” or mixed questions of law and fact under a de novo standard, .
John Louis Corrigan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Rami Hussein Hassan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kyle Lawrence Shepperson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Joshua Raymond Armendariz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Raymond Joseph Traylor, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Elliott Lamar-Seccer Pierson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Herald Edward Liu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Pearson v. State , ; (stating the denial of an evidentiary hearing and summary dismissal of a postconviction petition is reviewed for an abuse of discretion) .
Jason Charles Cibulka, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jose Antonio Martinez-Fuentes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
An appellate court reviews legal issues de novo but reviews factual issues for “whether there is suffici ent evidence in the re cord to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” Pearson v. State , (quotation omitted).
Matthew William Edwards, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Robert Alan Keogh, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
John Steven Martin, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Pao Choua Xiong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An appellate court reviews “the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Jeffery John Huebner, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or 4 made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation and citation om itted).
Edward Richard Krasky, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Nikita Nikel Dixon, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
William Dumont White, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
E Xiong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Vernell Lamont Flowers, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Peter Devonn Crosby, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
we do not reverse the postconviction court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation, quotations, and alterations omitted).
Joseph Christen Thoresen, Minn. 2021
A postconviction court also may “summarily deny a claim that is procedurally barred by the Knaffla rule.”
David William Reynolds, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jeffrey Allan Braun, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Eric Kenny Hagerman, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an e rroneous view of the la w, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” Pearson v. State , (quotations omitted).
Scott Marlin Morey, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Pearson v. State , (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 692, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2067 (1984)).
Abas Ibrahim Mohamed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Paul Matthew Ashfeld, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Jesse Toluwannimi Babatunde, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Maurice Lovell Anderson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
10 In addition, if a claim “could have been raised in a previous postconviction petition, the Knaffla rule bars consideration of the claim in a subsequent petition for postconvictio n relief.”