Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota (minn, 2016-07-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas Lee Fairbanks v. State of Minnesota
Minn. · 2016 · confidence medium
“There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.” Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.” Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn. 2005).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Powers v. State
Minn. · 2007 · confidence medium
Perry v. State, 705 N.W.2d 572, 574 (Minn.2005) (quoting Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Erickson v. State
Minn. · 2007 · confidence medium
“There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.” Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spears v. State (2×)
Minn. · 2006 · confidence medium
Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Schleicher v. State (4×)
Minn. · 2006 · confidence medium
"There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review." Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lee v. State
Minn. · 2006 · confidence medium
As Lee’s claim is, at best, a variation of his direct appeal claim that the district court erred by imposing consecutive sentences and an upward departure, he certainly *898 knew or should have known of the claim at the time of his direct appeal. “ ‘There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.’ ” Perry, 705 N.W.2d at 574 . (quoting Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pierson v. State
Minn. · 2006 · confidence medium
“There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.” Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn. 2005).
cited Cited as authority (rule) White v. State
Minn. · 2006 · confidence medium
Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005) (citing Ives v. State, 655 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn.2003)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McDonough v. State
Minn. · 2006 · confidence medium
Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Perry v. State
Minn. · 2005 · confidence medium
Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005).
Robert Marlyn TAYLOR, Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent
A04-1432.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan 27, 2005.
691 N.W.2d 78
Michael Clinton Davis, Special Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, MN, for Petitioner., Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.
Anderson.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 47%

OPINION

ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., Justice.

Robert Marlyn Taylor was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for the[*79] killing of John Turner and sentenced to life in prison. State v. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d 190 (Minn.2002). The facts underlying Taylor’s conviction can be found in our decision on direct appeal. Id. On direct appeal, Taylor raised, inter alia, a Batson issue claiming that the state’s peremptory strike of a juror constituted purposeful racial discrimination and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Taylor, 650 N.W.2d at 196. We denied his claim. Id. Taylor subsequently brought a petition for postconviction relief raising the same Batson issue previously decided on direct appeal. Before us now is Taylor’s appeal of the post-conviction court’s summary denial of his petition.

A postconviction court may summarily deny a petition when the issues raised in it have previously been decided by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in the same case.” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2004). Further, this court held in State v. Knaffla that once a direct appeal has been taken, “all matters raised therein and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976) (“Knaffla rule”). There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review. Ives v. State, 655 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn.2003). The second exception may be applied if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not “deliberately and inexcusably” fail to raise the issue on direct appeal. Fox v. State, 474 N.W.2d 821, 825 (Minn.1991).

Taylor raised the same Batson issue on direct appeal and this court denied his claim. Therefore, under Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3, the postconviction court properly denied Taylor’s petition. Further, Taylor’s claim is barred under Knaff-la and neither exception to Knaffla applies in this case. [1]

Affirmed.

1

. Taylor did not argue in his briefs to this court that either exception to the Knaffla rule applies. His argument seems to be that the rationale and holding in the decision on direct appeal have been called into question by the United States Supreme Court opinion in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003), and our decision in State v. Reiners, 664 N.W.2d 826 (Minn.2003). However, neither case alters the Batson analysis applied on direct appeal in this case. Miller-El involves the jurisdictional prerequisite for obtaining review of the denial of habeas relief under the federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and is inapplicable here. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029. Cf Patterson v. State, 670 N.W.2d 439, 441 n. 1 (Minn. 2003) (stating that Miller-El was inapplicable to the standard of review of a postconviction petition). Reiners, contrary to Taylor’s assertion, does not announce a new rule or alter the Batson analysis from our decision on direct appeal in Taylor’s case. See Reiners, 664 N.W.2d at 826.