Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 590.05 (2026)
Indigent Petitioners
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A person financially unable to obtain counsel who desires to pursue the remedy provided in section 590.01 may apply for representation by the state public defender. The state public defender shall represent such person under the applicable provisions of sections 611.14 to 611.27, if the person has not already had a direct appeal of the conviction. The state public defender may represent, without charge, all other persons pursuing a postconviction remedy under section 590.01, who are financially unable to obtain counsel.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases, 1991–2019 · leading case: Deegan v. State, 711 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 2006).
Deegan v. State, 711 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 2006). “05 (2004) violates the United States or Minnesota Constitutions because it provides that a petitioner who pleaded guilty, received no greater than the presumptive sentence, and did not pursue a direct appeal is not entitled to representation by the state public defender in a…”
Bonga v. State, 765 N.W.2d 639 (Minn. 2009). “See Minn.Stat. § 590.05 (2002). [1] Bonga requested counsel for his 2001 motion; both parties agree that Bonga did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.”
Barnes v. State, 768 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. 2009). “Under Minn.Stat. § 590.05 (2008) it is permissive, but not mandatory, that the state public defender represent an indigent defendant “pursuing a postconviction remedy” provided that the defendant has had a direct appeal.”
Crow v. State, 923 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 2019). “Crow filed his second postconviction petition on January 6, 2009, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 590.05 (2018) unconstitutionally denied him appointed counsel and meaningful access to the courts in his prior postconviction proceeding.”
Morris v. State, 765 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. 2009). “Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 590.05 (2008) (providing that “[a] person financially unable to obtain counsel who desires to pursue the remedy provided in section 590.”
Hanifi Jihad v. Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, Comm'r of Corr., 267 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2001). “2d 539 (1987), and no statutory right to counsel under Minnesota law, see Minn.Stat. § 590.05 (2000). Thus, an unsuccessful search for counsel was not an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling.”
Gustafson v. State, 754 N.W.2d 343 (Minn. 2008). “Minnesota Statutes § 590.05 (Supp.2007) provides that “[t]he state public defender shall represent [a person financially unable to obtain counsel] if the person has not already had a direct appeal of the conviction.”
Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1995). “See Minn.Stat. § 590.05 (1992). In his petition for posteonviction relief, Roby alleged the following seven trial errors: he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel; the trial court should have sua sponte given a jury instruction on accomplice corroboration; the trial…”
Francis v. State, 781 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 2010). “We held that Bonga had the right to counsel in his first petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.05 (2002), and that the post-conviction court’s denial of Bonga’s request for counsel warranted a remand of Bonga’s second petition for further consideration.”
Voorhees v. State, 627 N.W.2d 642 (Minn. 2001). “Minn.Stat. § 590.05 (2000) (stating that indigent persons may apply for representation by a state public defender to pursue postconviction relief “if the person has not already had a direct appeal”).”
Bonga v. State, 797 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 2011). “On remand to the postconviction court, the postconviction court, which was also the district court that accepted the waiver of counsel and the guilty plea, determined that there was no reason to doubt Bonga’s competency at the August 26, 1999, hearing at which Bonga waived his…”
Lewis v. State, 697 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). “Minn.Stat. § 590.05 (2004). When pursuing postcon-viction relief, such a person is entitled to be represented by a public defender.”
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.