Cited by

But at oral argument, for the first time and argued that the district court also erred by making credibility determinations without first holding an evidentiary hearing.

The district 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.”

“In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required,” the postconviction court must “consider[] the facts alleged in the petition as true and construe[] them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” -23 (Minn. 2018).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

We have held that district courts cannot make credibility determinations in postconviction proceedings “without first holding an evidentiary hearing.”

Appellate courts “review a [district] court’s summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”

In determining whether to hold 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.” -23 (Minn. 2018).

Appellate courts “review a [district] court’s summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”

This “interests-of-justice exception is only invoked in exceptional and extraordinary situations.” (quotation omitted).

In making this decision, “a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

DECISION “We review a postconviction court’s summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”

“The statutory interests-of-justice exception is only invoked in exceptional and extraordinary situations.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION “We review a [district] court’s summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Andersen v. State

In determining whether to hold a 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.” -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“The statutory interests-of- justice exception is only invoked in exceptional and extraordinary situations.” (quotation omitted).

The district 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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

When making this determination the district court is required to consider “the facts alleged in the petition as true and construe[] them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“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.” -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

And “[i]n 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.” -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

unless a statutory excepti on applies.” Andersen v. State

Appellate courts “review a postconviction court’s summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”

When deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, a postconviction court must consider “the facts alleged in the petition as true and construe[] them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” –23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“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.” –23 (Minn. 2018) (Andersen II) (quotation omitted).

In deciding whether to hold a hearing, “a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” Andersen v. State, 3 -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).