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.

  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    This court reviews “a postconviction court’s findings to determine whether there is sufficient evi-dentiary support in the record.” (citation omitted).
  • Mason v. State 652 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Mason v. State 652 N.W.2d 269 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Finne v. State 648 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Finne v. State 648 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    An appellate court affords “great deference to a district court’s findings of fact and will not reverse the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted).
  • Pederson v. State 649 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 2002
  • Pederson v. State 649 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 2002
  • Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
  • Shoen v. State 648 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 2002
  • Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
  • Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Sanders 644 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Sanders 644 N.W.2d 483 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    An appellate court affords “great deference to a district court’s findings of fact and will not reverse the findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted).
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
  • Robledo-Kinney v. State 637 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2002
  • Pierson v. State 637 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 2002
  • Robledo-Kinney v. State 637 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2002
    State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
  • Severson v. State 636 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2001
  • Severson v. State 636 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 2001
    *810 Where a direct appeal has already been taken, “all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252 , d at 741
  • Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
  • Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
    (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
  • Voorhees v. State 627 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2001
    (concluding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims requiring evidence of attorney-client communications are properly raised in a postconviction petition).