Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Sanders v. State, 628 N.W.2d 597.

35 citing documents.

Jennifer Lynn Baldwin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[T]he claim is procedurally barred unless [the petitioner] can show why fairness requires its consideration.”
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
1 See Sanders v. State (Sanders II)
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Howard William Amos v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Howard William Amos v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The burden is on petitioner to demonstrate that “fairness requires consideration of such a claim.” -01 (Minn. 2001).
Larry Jonnell Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, A21-1560, Supreme Court, January 17, 2024 Minn. 2024
Larry Jonnell Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, A21-1560, Supreme Court, January 17, 2024 Minn. 2024
–01 (Minn. 2001) (“[T]he claim is procedurally barred unless [petitioner] can show why fairness requires its consideration.”).
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The petitioner has the burden to show that “fairness requires consideration of such a claim.” -01 (Minn. 2001).
Thomas Robert Tichich, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In reviewing a postconviction court’s decision, we determine “whet her there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court ’s findings, and a postconviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Zenanko v. State, 688 (quoting Sanders v. State , ).
Brent Lanier Lynch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Swaney, d at 215 ; Sanders v. State
Aaron Joseph Morrow v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2016
Aaron Joseph Morrow v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2016
4 The second Strickland requirement is that a defendant must establish “a reasonable probability that absent his appellate counsel’s error, the outcome of his direct appeal would have been different.” ().
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
Sanders v. State (Sanders II)
Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
“Review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining ‘whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a post-conviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” ().
Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
In reviewing a postconviction proceeding, we determine “ ‘whether there *445 is sufficient evidence to sustain the post-conviction court’s findings, and a postcon-viction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” ().
Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
“Review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining ‘whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a post-conviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” ().
McDonough v. State 707 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 2006
McDonough v. State 707 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 2006
“Review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining “whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a postconviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” ().
A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
Review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining “whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a postconviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” ().
Sessions v. State 666 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2003
Sessions v. State 666 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2003
In addition, Sessions has made no showing that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that absent his appellate counsel’s error, the outcome of his direct appeal would have been different.’ ” Ives, d at 637 ().
Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003
Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003