Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite King v. State, 649 N.W.2d 149.

46 citing documents.

Joseph Christen Thoresen, Minn. 2021
King v. State , d 149, 156 (Minn. 2002).
Christopher Lee Holloway, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Once a defendant directly appeals a conviction, all matters raised in that appeal or kn own at the time of appeal will not be considered by a postconviction court in a subsequent petition for relief.”).
Neal Curtis Zumberge, Minn. 2019
The Knaffla rule also “includes all claims that the appellant should have known of at the time of appeal.” ().
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
Crow v. State 923 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 2019
1 (2006)); see King v. State , , 156 (Minn. 2002) ("Once a defendant directly appeals a conviction, all matters raised in that appeal or known at the time of appeal will not be considered by a postconviction court in a subsequent petition for relief.").
John Christian Richmond v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Christian Richmond v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“To warrant an evidentiary hearing a petitioner’s postconviction allegations must be more than argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“This rule applies if the defendant knew or should have known about the issue at the time of appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013
Sontoya v. State 829 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2013
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Heiges 806 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
154 n. 2 (Minn.2002) ("The misrepresentation in the affidavit chiefly concerned appellant’s alleged confession of the murder to acquaintances.”); (”[T]he admission of evidence of his separately-tried and nontestifying codefendant’s extrajudicial confession to a mutual
Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
Ferguson v. State 779 N.W.2d 555 Minn. 2010
Wilson v. State 726 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2007
Wilson v. State 726 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2007
Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
Quick v. State 692 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 2005
Quick v. State 692 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 2005
Knaffla also bars claims that should have been known at the time of direct appeal.
Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
Koskela v. State 690 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 2004
Koskela v. State 690 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 2004
Powers v. State 688 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 2004
Powers v. State 688 N.W.2d 559 Minn. 2004
Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
Noske v. Friedberg 670 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 2003
(discussing a conviction’s presumption of regularity).
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003
Stiles v. State 664 N.W.2d 315 Minn. 2003