Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 590. POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2026)

Pleadings And Practice After Filing A Postconviction Petition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Within 45 days after the filing of the petition pursuant to section 590.01 or within such time as the judge to whom the matter has been assigned may fix, the county attorney, or the attorney general, on behalf of the state, shall respond to the petition by answer or motion which shall be filed with the court administrator of district court and served on the petitioner if unrepresented or on the petitioner's attorney. No further pleadings are necessary except as the court may order. The court may at any time prior to its decision on the merits permit a withdrawal of the petition, may permit amendments thereto, and to the answer. The court shall liberally construe the petition and any amendments thereto and shall look to the substance thereof and waive any irregularities or defects in form.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota, 862 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota, 862 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 8× “” Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2014) (“The court shall liberally construe the petition and any amendments thereto and shall look to the substance thereof and waive any irregularities or defects in form.”
Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 4× “Moreover, in his petition Leake specifically identifies the factual circumstances giving rise to this claim and asserts that he believes his trial counsel's performance was deficient.”
Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 2× “For example, Minn.Stat. § 590.03 provides that “[t]he court shall liberally construe the petition and any amendments thereto and shall look to the substance thereof and waive any irregularities or defects in form.”
Riley v. State, 792 N.W.2d 831 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 590.03 (2010) ("The court shall liberally construe the petition and any amendments thereto and shall look to the substance thereof and waive any irregularities or defects in form.”
Roby v. State, 787 N.W.2d 186 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 4× “1(1), “waiv[ing] any irregularities or defects in form” and “liberally construing]” the petition to ascertain whether the petition raises an exception, Minn.Stat. § 590.03. Applying these standards, we hold that Roby’s petition was sufficient to invoke two of the five statutory…”
Fox v. State, 913 N.W.2d 429 (Minn. 2018). · cites it 2× “2012) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2016) ("The court shall liberally construe the petition.”
Jerome Emmanuel Davis v. State of Minnesota, 880 N.W.2d 373 (Minn. 2016). · cites it 4× “More than 2 years after we decided his direct appeal, in mid-December 2014, Davis filed a motion for an extension of time to file his postconviction petition, citing Minn.Stat. § 590.03 (2014) in support of the motion.”
Erickson v. State, 842 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 590.03 (2012); Wallace v. State, 820 N.”
Crow v. State, 923 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Minn. Stat. § 590.03 (2018) ; see Fox v. State , 913 N.”
Frank Duane Lussier v. State of Minnesota, 853 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 2× “Because we must liberally construe postconviction petitions, see Minn.Stat. § 590.03 (2012), we construe Lus-sier’s second petition, as did the district court, as including a renewed challenge to the accuracy of his guilty plea.”
Wallace v. State, 820 N.W.2d 843 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 2× “(quoting Minn.Stat. § 590.03 (2010)). In this case, the memorandum accompanying Wallace’s petition urged the postconviction court to consider the petition in the “interestfs] of justice.”
Jackson v. State, 919 N.W.2d 470 (Minn. 2018). · cites it 2× “In his second petition, Jackson alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a dismissal on the theory that the indictment violated his constitutional rights because it was based on inadmissible and prejudicial expert testimony regarding street gangs.…”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 590.03(3) — 1 case
Shaw v. State, 335 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 1983).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.