DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hodgson v. State, 540 N.W.2d 515.

133 citing documents.

  • Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
  • Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
    Opsahl, d at 421 (defense counsel’s failure to investigate two alternative suspects was trial strategy when police had abandoned their investigation of those suspects); (defense counsel’s decision not to present evidence that someone else may have committed the murder and not to investigate leads was trial strategy).
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hurd 763 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 2009
    (“Allegations in a postconviction petition must be ‘more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” ()).
  • Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
  • El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
  • El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
  • Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
  • Lynch v. State 749 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2008
  • Lynch v. State 749 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2008
  • Stutelberg v. State 741 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2007
  • Stutelberg v. State 741 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2007
    A petitioner’s allegations “must be ‘more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” Leake, d at 535 ().
  • Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    We review “a postconviction proceeding only to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconvietion court’s findings, and a postconviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted).
  • Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
  • Powers v. State 731 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2007
    The postconviction petition, however, must include “ ‘more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” (quoting Beltowski v. State, 289 Minn. 215, 217 , ).
  • Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
  • Francis v. State 729 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2007
  • Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
  • Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
    Further, allegations in a petition for postconviction relief must be “ ‘more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” (quoting Beltowski v. State, 289 Minn. 215, 217 , ).
  • Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
  • Townsend v. State 723 N.W.2d 14 Minn. 2006
    See, (noting that “[a]ll of appellant’s claims concerning withheld discovery were known at the time of trial and at the time of direct appeal, but were not raised.”).
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
    Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “ ‘more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” (quoting Beltowski v. State, 289 Minn. 215, 217 , ).
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
    “[Tjhere is a strong presumption that a counsels’ performance falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” ().
  • Voorhees v. State 706 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2005
  • Voorhees v. State 706 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2005
  • Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
  • Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
    etitioner which could be presented at the hearing on petition in this matter” as well as "all other legal and equitable grounds that may be discovered during these proceedings.” We do not consider such claims, "because a petitioner’s allegations must be 'more than argumentative assertions without factual support.'” , 864 n. 2 (Minn.2004) ().
  • Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
  • Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
  • 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.” ().
  • Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
  • McDonough v. State 675 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2004
  • McDonough v. State 675 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2004
  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    A. Deficient Representation An appellate court reviews “a post-conviction proceeding only to determine 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.” (citation omitted).
  • King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
  • King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
    Conversely, an evidentiary hearing is necessary “ ‘whenever material facts are in dispute that * * * must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.’ ” ().
  • Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
  • Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
    An evidentiary hearing is required “whenever material facts are in dispute that * * * must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.”
  • Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
  • Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
    We review “a posteonviction proceeding only to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the posteonviction court’s findings, and a posteonviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Rhodes 627 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2001