Cited by

“A 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.” State v. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).

“A 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.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Hallmark , –95 (Minn. 2019) (examining a hearsay exception when the district court failed to do so).

4 that 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).

We considered, and rejected, a similar argument in State v. Hallmark, stating that “section 611.02 does not require a defendant found guilty of two crimes to be sentenced on the less er of the two crimes.” .9 In Hallmark, the defendant was found guilty of first -degree premeditated murder and second -degree Because we liberally construe postconviction petitions, we will address this issue.

And “[a] 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.” State v. Hallmark , (quotation omitted).

“A 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.” (quotation omitted).

d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019).

See, e.g. , State v. Hallmark , , 300 (Minn. 2019) (stating that a defendant who asserted a claim of juror bias based on exposure to "the case through the internet, newspapers, and television media," must "demonstrate that at least one juror was 'actually biased' against him ...."