Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fox v. State, 474 N.W.2d 821.
- John Louis Corrigan, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
Earl Anthony Fry, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Fox v. State , ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim failed because he was unable to show his trial counsel was ineffective.
- Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
- Brian Keith Hooper v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 2016
- Daniel Leith Renville v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- Daniel Leith Renville v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- Joshua Steven Parsons v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
Joshua Steven Parsons v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a defendant must show that the attorney’s performance was deficient and that “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense” (quotation omitted)).
- Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
Vazquez v. State
822 N.W.2d 313
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(holding that delay in filing a postconviction petition *319 is “one relevant factor against granting relief’)
- Anderson v. State 811 N.W.2d 632 Minn. 2012
-
Anderson v. State
811 N.W.2d 632
Minn. 2012
“Claims decided in the interests of justice require that the claims have substantive merit and that the defendant did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (citation omitted) (quoting Powers, d at 561 ; ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
- Ashby v. State 752 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2008
- Ashby v. State 752 N.W.2d 76 Minn. 2008
- Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007
- Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007
- Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007
- Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007
- Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
- Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
- Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
- Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
- Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
- Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
- State v. Barnes 713 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 2006
-
State v. Barnes
713 N.W.2d 325
Minn. 2006
(quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
- Deegan v. State 711 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2006
- White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
- White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
-
Deegan v. State
711 N.W.2d 89
Minn. 2006
“Claims decided in the interests of justice require that the claims have substantive merit,” id., and “that the defendant did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal,”
- Voorhees v. State 706 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2005
- Voorhees v. State 706 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2005
- Perry v. State 705 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2005
- Perry v. State 705 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2005
- James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
-
James v. State
699 N.W.2d 723
Minn. 2005
(appellant’s four-year delay in seeking relief is a relevant consideration in determining whether that relief should be granted); -19 (Minn.1996) (appellant’s 15-year delay in filing a petition for postconviction relief was “deliberate and inexcusable” and constit
- State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
- State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
- Taylor v. State 691 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2005
- Taylor v. State 691 N.W.2d 78 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
- Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
- Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
- James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
James v. State
674 N.W.2d 216
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that a four-year delay weighs against granting the motion to withdraw a guilty plea).
- Jones v. State 671 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 2003
-
Jones v. State
671 N.W.2d 743
Minn. 2003
we held that only “where a claim is so novel that it can be said that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time the direct appeal was taken and decided will postconviction relief be allowed.” we concluded that, in limited circumstances, a substantive review of a case is warranted where fairness demands, even if the petitioner knew of the issue at the time of the direct appeal “unless the petitioner deliberately and inexcusably fails to raise the issue on direct appeal.”
- Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003