DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246.

225 citing documents.

  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
  • Miles v. State 840 N.W.2d 195 Minn. 2013
    We afford “great deference to a [postconviction] court’s findings of fact and will not reverse the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”
  • State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
  • Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
  • Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
    Our court affords great deference to a postcon-viction court’s “findings of fact and will not reverse the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
  • Ferguson v. State 826 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2013
    We review a postconviction court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion, and we will not set aside a postconviction court’s factual findings unless they are clearly errone *813 ous
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
  • Riley v. State 792 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2011
  • Riley v. State 792 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2011
    We have said that “[t]he decisions of a postconviction court will not be disturbed unless the court abused its dis-eretion.”
  • Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
  • Scherf v. State 788 N.W.2d 504 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Prtine 784 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2010
  • Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    ANALYSIS Appellate courts “review a postconviction court’s findings to determine whether there is sufficient evidentiary support in the record.”
  • Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
  • Doppler v. State 771 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2009
    (stating that a reviewing court will not reverse the findings of a postconviction court unless they are clearly erroneous).
  • Barnes v. State 768 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
  • Barnes v. State 768 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 2009
    *364 Under Knaffla a postconvietion claim is not barred if: (1) “the claim ‘is so novel that the legal basis was not available on direct appeal/ ” and (2) “the petitioner did not ‘deliberately and inexcusably’ ” fail to raise the claim on direct appeal and “ ‘fairness requires its consideration.’ ” ().
  • Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
  • Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Longoria v. State 749 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    ANALYSIS “The decisions of a postconviction court will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion.”
  • Kachina v. State 744 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Kachina v. State 744 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Sanders 743 N.W.2d 616 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
    While the Larrison test is applied to witnesses who recant trial testimony, we have also indicated that Larri-son applies more generally, such as “when a court reviews an allegation that false testimony was given at trial.”
  • Johnson v. State 733 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Johnson v. State 733 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    Appellate courts “afford great deference to a district court’s findings of fact and will not reverse the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”
  • Wilson v. State 726 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2007
  • Wilson v. State 726 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 2007
  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “The decisions of a postcon-viction court will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion.”
  • Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
  • Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
  • Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
    On the other hand, a lawyer ordinarily will not be expected to describe trial or negotiation strategy in detail.”); -55 (Minn.2001); -95 (Minn.1997).
  • Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
  • Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
  • Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
    -51 (Minn.2001) (Dukes II).
  • Amundson v. State 714 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • Amundson v. State 714 N.W.2d 715 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Maurstad 706 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    Normally, “[t]he decisions of a postconviction court will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion.”
  • Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005