§
Subdivision 1.Early hearing.
Unless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the court shall promptly set an early hearing on the petition and response thereto, and promptly determine the issues, make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto, and either deny the petition or enter an order granting appropriate relief.
§
Subd. 2.Open court hearing.
Hearings on a petition filed pursuant to section 590.01 shall be in open court in the judicial district in which the conviction took place or in the Second, Fourth, Seventh, or Tenth Judicial Districts in the discretion of the judge to whom the proceeding has been assigned.
§
Subd. 3.Hearing.
The court may order the petitioner to be present at the hearing. If the petitioner is represented by an attorney, the attorney shall be present at any hearing.
A verbatim record of any hearing shall be made and kept.
Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the burden of proof of the facts alleged in the petition shall be upon the petitioner to establish the facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
In the discretion of the court, it may receive evidence in the form of affidavit, deposition, or oral testimony. The court may inquire into and decide any grounds for relief, even though not raised by the petitioner.
The court may summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner and 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
390
cases (
38 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case:
Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2004).
Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 27× “The allegations in Opsahl's petition and supporting affidavits meet the minimal standard for an evidentiary hearing under Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2002). Although we are generally reluctant to challenge the basis for a conviction, we are more reluctant to deny a hearing for…”
State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 15× “y read Sprint’s response to the subpoena or to request an examination of Johanna Hollis’s cellphone; (2) the forensic examination of Johanna Hollis’s cellphone means that Nicks was convicted using false testimony; (3) the district court erred by admitting evidence that Nicks ran…”
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota, 853 N.W.2d 766 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 31× “” Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd. 1 (2012). In the context of witness- recantation claims, we have interpreted the statutory rule to impose two requirements.”
Riley v. State, 819 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 11× “1 (2010). Moreover, a petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the petition “[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.”
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota, 862 N.W.2d 33 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 20× “Matakis notes that Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd. 1 (2014), provides that a postconviction court shall hold an evidentiary hearing “[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no 6 relief.”
Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2006).
· cites it 16× “Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2004). In reviewing a postconviction proceeding, we determine "`whether there *445 is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court's findings, and a postconviction court's decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”
Bobo v. State, 820 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 2012).
· cites it 16× “Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2010) (emphasis added).”
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560, 875 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 2016).
· cites it 12× “; see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd. 1 (directing a court to hold an evidentiary hearing “[u]nless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief”).”
Wright v. State, 765 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. 2009).
· cites it 13× “The court characterized this letter as a “successive post-conviction motion” for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd. 3. But the court had not yet ruled on the June 5 petition for postconviction relief, and the July 3 letter did not raise any postconviction claims.”
Andersen v. State, 913 N.W.2d 417 (Minn. 2018).
· cites it 8× “" Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd. 1 (2016). "In determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, a postconviction court considers the facts alleged in the petition as true and construes them in the *423 light most favorable to the petitioner.”
Dobbins v. State, 788 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 9× “” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2008). We have interpreted section 590.”
Washington v. State, 845 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 10× “” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2012). 1 The existence of strict procedural requirements for postconviction petitions raises the question whether the same requirements also apply to motions to correct sentence filed pursuant to rule 27.”
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.