Cited by

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

225 citing documents.

Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
ANALYSIS I. Postconvietion Relief Appellate courts “review a postconviction court’s findings to determine whether there is sufficient evidentiary support in the record.” (citation omitted).
Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
ANALYSIS A postconviction court’s findings are reviewed “to determine whether there is sufficient evidentiary support in the record.”
Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Appellate courts “review a post-conviction court’s findings to determine whether there is sufficient evidentiary support in the record.”
Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
Two exceptions are made: first, a claim is not barred where the claim “is so novel that the legal basis was not available on direct appeal” and, second, a claim is not barred where the “petitioner did not ‘deliberately and inexcusably’ fail to raise [the claim] on direct appeal * * * [and] fairness requires its consideration.” ().
Ledden v. State 686 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Spann v. State 686 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Spann v. State 686 N.W.2d 868 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Ledden v. State 686 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
ANALYSIS Appellate courts “review a postcon-viction court’s findings to determine *875 whether there is sufficient evidentiary support in the record.”
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Washington v. State 675 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2004
Washington v. State 675 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2004
Stone v. State 675 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Stone v. State 675 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
ANALYSIS Appellate courts “review a post-conviction court’s findings to determine whether there is sufficient evidentiary support in the record.” (citation omitted).
Henderson v. State 675 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2004
State v. Rhodes 675 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2004
Henderson v. State 675 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2004
State v. Rhodes 675 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2004
In Re the Welfare of B.R.C. 675 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In Re the Welfare of B.R.C. 675 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bergerson 671 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bergerson 671 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Meemken v. State 662 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Meemken v. State 662 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
Doppler v. State 660 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 2003
Dukes v. State 660 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2003
(hereinafter Dukes II)- In Dukes II, Dukes argued, among other claims, (1) the posteonviction court erred in dismissing as procedurally barred his claim that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had conceded his guilt as to the attempted aggravated robbery charge without D
State v. Jorgensen 660 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 2003
State v. Jorgensen 660 N.W.2d 127 Minn. 2003
State v. Copeland 656 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Copeland 656 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
at 2064 ; , 252 *605 (Minn.2001).
Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003
Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003
(noting additional fact-finding is required when the claim requires evidence of attorney-client communications).
Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002