Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. Stategreen2 sentences2016“We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.” Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012). 2016“We review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.” Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Minn. 2012). | 3 | 3 |
Carlton v. Stategreen2 sentences2014State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 1 See Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 601 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd. 4, is not jurisdictional and can be waived by state). 2013Cf. Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 601-02, 606 (Minn.2012) (holding that the two-year time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd. 4(c), is not jurisdictional bar but may be waived by state and recognizing that district court may grant postconviction relief beyond the time limit if state fails to assert it). | 3 | 3 |
Sanchez v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550, 557 (Minn. 2012). 2012We considered and rejected the identical argument in Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550, 556-58 (Minn.2012), decided today. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Foremangreen1 sentence2016He does not expressly address the exceptions to the time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd. 4. 5 To support his argument for both exceptions to the Knaffla rule, Carlson cites Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), and the Bible for the proposition that “one witness is not enough to convict,” but a “matter must be established by testimony of two or three witnesses.” This reading of Crawford is contrary to settled caselaw holding that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman, 680 N.W.2d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) | 1 | 1 |
Gassler v. Stategreen1 sentence2014The interests-of-justice exception applies only in “exceptional situations.” Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 586 (Minn. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen2 sentences2014A motion is properly filed under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, “only if the offender challenges the sentence on the ground that it is ‘unauthorized by law’ in the sense that the sentence is contrary to an applicable statute or other applicable law.” Id. at 214 ; see also State v. Borrego, 661 N.W.2d 663, 667 (Minn. App. 2003) (“An unauthorized sentence must be contrary to statutory requirements.”). 2014In Washington, this court stated “that the two-year time limit in section 590.01, subdivision 4(a) does not apply to motions properly filed under rule 27.03, subdivision 7 9.” Id. at 211 (emphasis added) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Borregogreen1 sentence2014A motion is properly filed under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, “only if the offender challenges the sentence on the ground that it is ‘unauthorized by law’ in the sense that the sentence is contrary to an applicable statute or other applicable law.” Id. at 214 ; see also State v. Borrego, 661 N.W.2d 663, 667 (Minn. App. 2003) (“An unauthorized sentence must be contrary to statutory requirements.”). | 1 | 1 |
Vazquez v. Stategreen1 sentence2013After Amundson filed a notice of appeal, this court released its decision in Vazquez v. State, 822 N.W.2d 313, 318 (Minn.App.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Munger v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Munger v. State, 749 N.W.2d 335, 338 (Minn.2008). | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Here, the district court relied on language in Stewart v. State, 764 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Minn.2009), suggesting that the postcon-vietion time limit was jurisdictional. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016He does not expressly address the exceptions to the time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd. 4. 5 To support his argument for both exceptions to the Knaffla rule, Carlson cites Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), and the Bible for the proposition that “one witness is not enough to convict,” but a “matter must be established by testimony of two or three witnesses.” This reading of Crawford is contrary to settled caselaw holding that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman, 680 N.W.2d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) 2016He does not expressly address the exceptions to the time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd. 4. 5 To support his argument for both exceptions to the Knaffla rule, Carlson cites Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), and the Bible for the proposition that “one witness is not enough to convict,” but a “matter must be established by testimony of two or three witnesses.” This reading of Crawford is contrary to settled caselaw holding that “a conviction can rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a single credible witness.” State v. Foreman, 680 N.W.2d 536, 539 (Minn. 2004) | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kennedy v. Carlson
green
1 sentence2014State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 1 See Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 601 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that time limit in Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd. 4, is not jurisdictional and can be waived by state). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.