Cited by

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.” d 417, 422-23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

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

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).

In making this decision, “a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and 16 construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” d 417, 422-23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

Minnesota law “authorizes ‘a person convicted of a crime’ to seek postconviction relief by filing a petition claiming that the conviction ‘violated the person’s rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the state.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd 1(1) (2016)).

see Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.

(stating the summary dismissal of a postconviction petition is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is 10 based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

Minnesota law “authorizes ‘a person convicted of a crime’ to seek postconviction relief by filing a petition claiming that the conviction ‘violated the person’s rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of the state.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.

In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, 10 the postconviction court must consider the facts alleged in the petition as true and view them in “the light most favorable to the petitioner.” -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

A district court may deny a petition without an evidentiary hearing only if “the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” (quotation omitted).

Andersen v. State (Andersen III)

“Upon filing a petition for postconviction relief, an evidentiary hearing must be held unless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is 12 entitled to no relief.” (quotation omitted).

d 417, 422-23 (Minn. 2018).

Pearson v. State , ; (stating the denial of an evidentiary hearing and summary dismissal of a postconviction petition is reviewed for an abuse of discretion) .

5 proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

To determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required, the postconviction court must consider the facts alleged in the petition as true and view them in “the light most favorable to the petitioner.” Anderson v. State , -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).

A petition “filed outside the statute of limitations may be summarily denied, unless a statutory exception applies.”

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

To 7 determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required, the dist rict court must consider the facts alleged in the petition as true and view them in “the light most favorable to the petitioner.” -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).

” 11 (quotation omitted).

The clear -and-convincing standard is satisfied “only when the evidence is unequivocal, intrinsically probable, and free from frailties.” (quotation omitted) .

Andersen v. State , -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotations and citations omitted).

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

DECISION “A petition [for postconviction relief] that is filed outside the statute of limitations may be summarily denied, unless a statutory exception applies.” Andersen v. State , 23 (Minn. 2018) (quotations and citations omitted).

“A postconviction 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.”

To determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required, “a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petit ion as true and construes them in the light most 8 favorable to the petitioner.” Andersen v. State , –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).

“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.” Andersen v. State , (quotation omitted).

To determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required, the postconviction court must consider the facts alleged in the petition as true and view 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 t he petition as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the petitioner.” Andersen 6 v. State, (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N I. “[Appellate courts] review a postconviction court’s summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” 4 (Minn. 2018).

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

9 While courts assume that the facts asse rted in a postconviction petition are true, -23 (Minn. 2018), Stansberry still bears the burden to establish facts that entitle him to relief by more th an mere argumentative assertions without factual support.

c. Credibility Determinations Appellant also argues that even if the discharge summary was admissible, the “district court clearly erred by over -relying on it to the de triment of the live testimony.” Appellant relies on Andersen v. State , to argue that the district court erred when it “implicitly found” that the discharge summary was credible because, under Andersen, district courts cannot make credibility determinations based on affidavits alone.

In Andersen v. State (Andersen III ), d 417, 421 (Minn. 2018), we reversed in part the district court’s denial of Andersen’s second postconviction petition and remanded to the district court for its determination of whether an evidentiary hearing was required to consider the evidence set forth in the affidavits of Geraldine Bellanger and Stacy Weaver.