Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Andersen v. State, 913 N.W.2d 417.

149 citing documents.

Daniel Lynn Conley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.” (quotation omitted).
Fredrick Dewayne Hines, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Chim LoVan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We review a postconviction court’ s summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” (quotations an d citations omitted).
Jonathon Michael Honeycutt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Sonny Syhavong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kenny Lee Reed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[Appellate courts] review a postconviction court’s summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Andersen v. State
Carl Adam Mulvihill, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If the petitioner does not demonstrate that an exception applies and that application of the exception is timely, the postconviction court may summarily deny the petition as untime ly.” Id.; see also Andersen v. State , d 417, 424 (Minn. 2018).
Marcus Kendrick Jones, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jason Maurice Fagin, Minn. 2019
(holding that a district court may not resolve disputed facts without first holding an evidentiary hearing to assess the affiants’ credibility).
Amy Jeanne Flaherty, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sheldon James Armstrong, III, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.11 (Minn. 2018) (declining to consider claims not raised before th e postconviction court).
John Louis Corrigan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Andersen v. State , d 417, 428 n.11 (Minn. 2018) (citing Roby v. State , ) 3 To the extent Corrigan argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.
Sakariya Ali Aden, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A petition that is filed outside the statute of limitations may be summarily denied, unless a statutory exception applies.” (citation omitted).
Andrew Wayne Clarke, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Abraham Tony Dolo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A postconviction court “may not find a postconviction affiant unreliable without first holding an evidentiary hearing to assess the affiant’s credibility.” Andersen v. State
Rossberg v. State 932 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 2019
Rossberg v. State 932 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 2019
Andersen v. State , , 422 (Minn. 2018).
Reginald Oranz Calhoun, Petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Odell v. State 931 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2019
Odell v. State 931 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2019
Andersen v. State , , 422 (Minn. 2018).
Paul Ronny Barsness, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael Opeoluwa Adebayo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required, the postc onviction court must consider the facts alleged in the petition as true and view them in “the light most favorable to the petitioner.” Andersen v. State , -23 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).
Samuel Wayne Behrens, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Jackson v. State 927 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2019
Jackson v. State 927 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 2019
Andersen v. State , , 422 (Minn. 2018).
Jessica Lynn Stafford, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Berkeley Read Lewis, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ernesto Reyes-Alcazar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael Frederick Schmidt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“If the petitioner does not demonstrate that an exception applies and that application of the exception is t imely, the postconviction court may summarily deny the petition as untimely.” Id.
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
Reed v. State 925 N.W.2d 11 Minn. 2019
Andersen v. State , , 422-23 (Minn. 2018) (quoting Brown v. State , , 618 (Minn. 2017) ).
James Donald Dahl, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Deontray Vershon Tate, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Thomas John Rassmussen, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
Andersen v. State , , 422 (Minn. 2018).
Steven James Hayes, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.11 (Minn. 2018) () (holding that some of appellant’s claims would not be considered on appeal because they were not raised before the postconviction court).
Travis Lee Keller, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
John Stephen Woodward, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Andersen v. State , –23 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.11 (Minn. 2018) (refusing to consider issue raised for first time on appeal).
Nissalke v. State 920 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 2018
Nissalke v. State 920 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State , , 422 (Minn. 2018).
Paul Simon Lindstrom, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
n.11 (Minn. 2018) (refusing to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal); State v. Winbush , n.1 (Minn. App. 2018) (“There is no indication in the record that appellant previously raised this argument.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anderson v. State , -23 (Minn. 2018).
Charles Winston, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Dominique Salatheia Williams, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Second, we are convinced that summary denial of Williams’s petition does not run afoul of the principle that postconviction courts may not “make credibility determinations without first holding an evidentiary hearing.”