Cited by

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

151 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.
Kenneth Eugene Andersen, Minn. 2020
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.
Daniel Lynn Conley v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Chim LoVan v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Sonny Syhavong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kenny Lee Reed v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Sheldon James Armstrong, III v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Anthony Janish Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.11 (Minn. 2018) (declining to consider claims not raised before th e postconviction court).
John Louis Corrigan v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Abraham Tony Dolo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Deandre Johnson, Jr. 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael Opeoluwa Adebayo v. State of Minnesota 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. v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Allen Lawrence Scarsella Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Berkeley Read Lewis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ernesto Reyes-Alcazar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Deontray Vershon Tate v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Thomas John Rassmussen, Jr. 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
Andersen v. State , , 422 (Minn. 2018).
Steven James Hayes v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Andersen v. State , –23 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Jentzen 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 v. Commissioner of Public Safety 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 v. Anthony Lee Stands Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Anderson v. State , -23 (Minn. 2018).
Charles Winston v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018