Cited by

See, (victim later claimed she lied at trial); (witnesses to shooting made inconsistent statements); d 414, 423 (Minn. 2004) (several State fact witnesses described as a “chorus of liars” because of their recantations); Andersen, d at 172 (defendant’s mother gave trial testimony that was “self-contradictory”

d 428, 433 (Minn. 1998) (applying the test adopted by federal courts in Larrison v. United 6 States, 24 F.2d 82, 87- 88 (7th Cir. 1928)).

3 (applying Larrison test).

(applying test for false wi tness testimony adopted by federal courts in Larrison v. United States , 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928)).

“A lengthy delay in filing a petition for postconviction relief may in itself provide a sufficient basis for affirming the 10 dismissal of the petition when there has already been a direct appeal.”

“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.’ ” ().

“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.’ ” ()

“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.’ ” (); .

to support this proposition.

There are two exceptions: (1) when an issue is “so novel that there was no legal basis for the claim at the time of appeal,” and (2) “ % limited situations when fairness so requires and when the petitioner did not “deliberately and inexcusably” fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.’ ” Id.

See Fields, d at 468 (concluding that there was no merit to appellant’s claim that his appellate attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by deciding not to pursue a meritless claim that trial counsel was ineffective); (same).

(deciding to evaluate the merits of petitioner’s claims although his 10-year delay “alone may be sufficient grounds” for dismissing his petition); -86 (Minn.1997) (holding that although the petitioner’s claims were either procedurally barred or meritless, the 18-year d

-85 (Minn.1982) (adopting by implication the Larrison test in Minnesota).

(discussing standard for evaluating newly discovered evidence within the context of postconviction relief).

(stating defendant’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim was “recharacterizing an issue that he should have raised on direct appeal”).

ted the Seventh Circuit’s Larrison test in Sutherlin v. State: “Under the Larrison rule, the petitioner must meet three criteria: (1) the court must be ‘reasonably well satisfied’ that the testimony was false; (2) without the false testimony, the jury might have reached a different conclusion; and (3) the petitioner was taken by surprise at trial or did not know of the falsity until after trial.” (citing Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir.1928)).

(holding that a 10 year delay in filing a petition alone may be sufficient grounds for dismissal).

A petitioner is procedurally barred from raising an issue in a *579 postconviction proceeding under this rule if he “knew or should have known about the issue at the time of [direct] appeal.”