Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fratzke v. State, 450 N.W.2d 101.

91 citing documents.

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