Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354.

621 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Roby v. State , (stating that an appellate court will generally not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Roby v. State , (“[Appellate courts] generally will not decide issues which wer e not raised before the district court.”).
State v. Roy 920 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roy 920 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State , , 357 (Minn. 1996).
Robert Sam Raisch, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-57 (Minn. 1996) (noting that a defendant must be prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise a claim).
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Richard Willmar Rapatt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Moreover, an appellate court “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Although we may addr ess ineffective-assistance- of-counsel claims not raised in district court or in a postconviction petition if the appellate record is sufficiently developed, Roby v. State , the 12 general rule is that a direct appeal from a conviction “is not the most appropriate way to raise issues of trial counsel’s ineffective representation .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Because Kepner did not raise his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in district court, that claim is not properly before us. See Roby v. State , (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
See Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) ("This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court...."
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) ("[Appellate] court[s] generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court....").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Also, the state failed to raise this issue below, and appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
7 (Minn. 1996) (holding that this court will not address issues not raised in the district court ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Winbush 912 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Winbush 912 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) (noting that an appellate court generally does not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal).
Gideon Charles Arrington, II, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Generally, we “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (declining to hear an issue not raised in district court); n.1 (Minn. 1998) (stating that issues not argued in briefs are waived).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court does not 4 D E C I S I O N As a threshold matter, respondent State of Minnesota argues that, because no motion to withdraw a guilty plea was presented to or considered by the district court, (noting that, generally, an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and not considered by the district court) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ordinarily, appellate courts “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating appellate courts generally do not decide issues not raised before the district court).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Roby v. State , (stating that appellate courts generally do not address matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brown v. State 895 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
Brown v. State 895 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
“An ‘evidentiary hearing is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.’ ” ()
A16-0648 Minn. 2017
“An ‘evidentiary hearing is not required unless the petitioner alleges such facts which, if proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would entitle him or her to the requested relief.’ ” (); .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court .”).