Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482.

124 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Mark Scott Hendrickson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Kenny Lee Reed, FKA: Gordon David Reese, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Johnathan Bernard Edwards, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Roby v. State , (concluding that claim could not be relitigated in a postconviction petition after assertion in pro se brief in prior direct appeal).
Daniel Leith Renville, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
Gail v. State 888 N.W.2d 474 Minn. 2016
(“Pursuant to [ Minn. Stat. § 590.04 ," subd.
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, n.1 (Minn. 1995) (explaining that direct appeal from a judgment of conviction is not the most appropriate way to raise an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim because the appellate court consequently lacks the facts of why counsel did or did not do certain things).
Robert Patrick Butters v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Patrick Butters v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Here, even if Butters’s brief may be construed as arguing the interests- of-justice exception, that exception is usually limited to unique situations when “the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” 4 (quotation omitted).
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The interests- 3 of-justice exception is generally limited to unique situations where the petitioner did not “deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (quotation omitted).
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
Nissalke v. State 861 N.W.2d 88 Minn. 2015
(Wahl, J., concurring specially).
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Harold David Yaritz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A claim is also not Knaffla barred in limited situations where “fairness so requires and if the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (quotation marks omitted).
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Generally, a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction is not the most appropriate way to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the reviewing court does not have the benefit of all the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things.” n.1 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
Erickson v. State 842 N.W.2d 314 Minn. 2014
Francis v. State 829 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2013
Francis v. State 829 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2013
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
Roby v. State 808 N.W.2d 20 Minn. 2011
We affirmed the denial of both postconviction petitions in Roby v. State (Roby II), and Roby v. State (Roby III), respectively.
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
Roby v. State 787 N.W.2d 186 Minn. 2010
We affirmed both the conviction and the denial of Roby’s first two postconviction petitions in Roby I, d at 510 , Roby v. State (Roby II), and Roby v. State (Roby III), respectively.
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
Barnes v. State 768 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Barnes v. State 768 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
Quick v. State 757 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 2008
Quick v. State 757 N.W.2d 278 Minn. 2008
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Two exceptions to this general rule are when: (1) the “claim is so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time the direct appeal was taken and decided”; or (2) fairness requires review and the petitioner “did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (quotation, omitted).
Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by