Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fox v. State, 913 N.W.2d 429.

32 citing documents.

Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Appellant Minn. 2025
Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Appellant Minn. 2025
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
n.2 (Minn. 2013); n.2 (Minn. 2018); n.3 (Minn. 2019).
Carlos Heard, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Carlos Heard, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
n.3 (Minn. 2019); n.2 (Minn. 2018); n.2 (Minn. 2013).
Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Joshua Chiazor Ezeka, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
“If, taking the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the petitioner, the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the [district] court may dismiss the petition without an evidentiary hearing.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Larry Jonnell Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, A21-1560, Supreme Court, January 17, 2024 Minn. 2024
Larry Jonnell Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, A21-1560, Supreme Court, January 17, 2024 Minn. 2024
Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Minn. 2021
Kevin Terrance Hannon, Minn. 2021
In our review of Hannon’s claims, we are required to “liberally construe the [postconviction] petition.” Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2020); (applying this pleading provision to consideration of postconviction petitions on appeal).
Raymond Cortez Steward, Minn. 2020
Kenneth Eugene Andersen, Minn. 2020
Although we construe pro se postconviction claims liberally and with an understanding eye, see Fox v. State , we decline to infer and rule upon a complex constitutional argument based on the limited analysis and authority that Andersen provided 13 in his brief.
Christian David-Robert Wille v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
n.2 (Minn. 2018) (“We have not addressed the impact of the 2005 amendments to Minn. Stat. § 590.01 on Knaffla and its exceptions.”).
Thomas J. Fox, Minn. 2020
Erick Lamont Lindsey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christopher London Walker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The postconviction court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.”
Antone Larron Owens v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Johnathan Bernard Edwards v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The postconviction court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.”
Odell v. State 931 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2019
Odell v. State 931 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2019
Fox v. State , , 433 (Minn. 2018) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd.
Jackson v. State 927 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2019
Jackson v. State 927 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2019
Fox v. State , , 433 (Minn. 2018) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd.
Dane Joseph Riley v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2018) ; see Fox v. State , , 433 (Minn. 2018) ("We construe Fox's petition liberally, as we do generally with pro se petitions").
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Fox v. State , n.2 (Minn. 2018); n.2 (Minn. 2013).
Nissalke v. State 920 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 2018
Nissalke v. State 920 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 2018
Fox v. State , , 433 (Minn. 2018) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd.