Skip to main content

Buckingham v. State

Citations

  • 799 N.W.2d 229
  • 2011 Minn. LEXIS 383
  • 2011 WL 2622631

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the petitioner's arguments were Knaffla barred because we had \expressly considered and rejected identical arguments in [petitioner's] direct appeal\
  • stating that “[t]o be reviewed in the interests of justice, a claim must have merit”
  • noting that Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3, provided an independent basis for rejecting postconviction claims that were decided on direct appeal
  • determining that petitioner’s claims were Knaffla-barred where the direct appeal had proceeded to conclusion and the petitioner raised issues in his postconviction petition that were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stras

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.