Cited by

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

215 citing documents.

Jason Elliot Peterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating the summary dismissal of a postconviction petition is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Alan Mcraven Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randall Ferrell Decker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Furthermore, a petitioner must “show a reasonable probability that the end result of the criminal process would have been more favorable by reason of a plea to a lesser charge or a sentence of less prison time.” Id.; d 590, 598 (Minn. 2017).
Eziquel Ignacio Leal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Robert John Kaiser v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Melissa Lynn Hanson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
George Dudley v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
George Cornelius Watkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Alexander James Ray v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Matthew Prescott Beale v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Chris Marquis McMorris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Tyler Douglas Flantz v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Yaasiin Aweis Isxaaq v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Andy Simon Minn. Ct. App. 2022
John Thomas Owen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Orlando Omar Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
5 Appellate courts “review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Artavies Raymone Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotations and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Wlemonger Emmanuel Deward Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin John Joyce Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Sebastian Phillip Miller 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Rami Hussein Hassan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Kyle Lawrence Shepperson v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Jennifer Lynn Baldwin Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Joshua Raymond Armendariz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Raymond Joseph Traylor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Elliott Lamar-Seccer Pierson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Herald Edward Liu v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jose Antonio Martinez-Fuentes v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Robert Alan Keogh v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
John Steven Martin, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Charles Ricardo O’Neal Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Pao Choua Xiong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An appellate court reviews “the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Jeffery John Huebner v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Nikita Nikel Dixon v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
William Dumont White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
E Xiong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Vernell Lamont Flowers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Peter Devonn Crosby v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jeffrey Allan Braun v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Eric Kenny Hagerman v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021