Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fratzke v. State, 450 N.W.2d 101.
- State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
s attorney did not review the evidence, investigate the evidence, or introduce the evidence at trial.” The district court denied Reid’s petition without an evidentiary hearing because it determined that Reid’s allegations were, quoting the supreme court’s decision in Fratzke 11 v. State, “too generalized to warrant an evidentiary hearing.”
- State of Minnesota v. Cinque Daprice Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Cinque Daprice Owens
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
5 An evidentiary hearing is also not required “unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.”
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B. L. and B. T., Parents., A25-0623, Court … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B. L. and B. T., Parents., A25-0623, Court … Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- Ryan Grant, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
Jeremia Joseph Loper, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
ive an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must “allege facts which would affirmatively prove that his counsel ’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel ’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotations omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Richard Blegen
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a petitioner’s allegations that “trial counsel did not properly handle hearsay and inconsistent testimony and ‘coached’ the accomplice” were too generalized to warrant an evidentiary hearing).
- Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
-
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota
862 N.W.2d 33
Minn. 2015
1 (2014), provides that a postconviction court shall hold an eviden-tiary hearing “[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” 4 We have held, however, that an evidentiary hearing is “not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.”
- Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Raymond Darrel Pfarr v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
should have pursued.” But “generalized allegations of incompetence [of counsel] are not reason for an evidentiary hearing.”
- Frank Duane Lussier v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2014
-
Frank Duane Lussier v. State of Minnesota
853 N.W.2d 149
Minn. 2014
Accordingly, an “evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the petitioner fails to allege facts that are sufficient to entitle him or her to the relief requested.” ().
- Matakis v. State 842 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Matakis v. State
842 N.W.2d 689
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
*692 An evidentiary hearing is not necessary if the petition does not allege facts “which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.” (affirming the postconviction court’s finding that vague allegations that trial counsel coached a witness and improperly dealt with evidence were too general to require a hearing); (affirming denial of relief without a hearing because petition
- Davis v. State 784 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2010
- Davis v. State 784 N.W.2d 387 Minn. 2010
- McKenzie v. State 754 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2008
- McKenzie v. State 754 N.W.2d 366 Minn. 2008
- Ganpat v. State 746 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2008
-
Ganpat v. State
746 N.W.2d 891
Minn. 2008
A postconviction court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing “unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.”
- Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
-
Spann v. State
740 N.W.2d 570
Minn. 2007
An evidentiary hearing “is not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.” (citing State ex rel.
- Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
-
Erickson v. State
725 N.W.2d 532
Minn. 2007
An evidentiary hearing on such a claim “is not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.”
- Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
-
Cuypers v. State
711 N.W.2d 100
Minn. 2006
1 (2004); (stating that an evidentia-ry “hearing is not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief.”).
- Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
- Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
- Johnson v. State 697 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2005
- A.C. Ford v. State 690 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2005
-
A.C. Ford v. State
690 N.W.2d 706
Minn. 2005
1 (2002), the court must grant a hearing on a postcon-viction petition unless the petition, files and record “conclusively show that petitioner is entitled to no relief * * *.” ().
- Henderson v. State 675 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 2004
-
Henderson v. State
675 N.W.2d 318
Minn. 2004
Id.; Hummel, d at 564 ( ).
- McDonough v. State 675 N.W.2d 53 Minn. 2004
-
McDonough v. State
675 N.W.2d 53
Minn. 2004
A petitioner must allege facts “ ‘which, if proved, would entitle [him] to the requested relief.’ ” Townsend, d at 229 ().
- Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
- Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
- State v. Bjork 610 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2000
- State v. Bjork 610 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2000
- Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
- Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
- Gassler v. State 590 N.W.2d 769 Minn. 1999
-
Gassler v. State
590 N.W.2d 769
Minn. 1999
1; (stating that an evidentiary “hearing is not required unless facts are alleged which, if proved, would entitle a petitioner to the requested relief’).
- Zenanko v. State 587 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1998