Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that appellant did not meet his burden to establish that the new evidence regarding the SPPDCL could not have been discovered with due diligence or that the new evidence clearly and convincingly established his innocence
• noting that by pleading guilty Roberts waived his right to challenge the state’s evidence against him
• holding that Roberts did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is innocent of the offense for which he was convicted because he did not offer evidence regarding the chemical composition of the substance and that the substance was not cocaine
• holding that Roberts did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is innocent of the convicted offense because he did not offer evidence of the chemical composition of the substance and did not even allege that the substance was not cocaine
• holding that SPPDCL problems are not newly discovered evidence
• holding that the appellant in Roberts did not demonstrate by clear-and-convincing evidence that he is innocent of the offense for which he was convicted because he did not offer evidence regarding the chemical composition of the substance and never claimed that the substance was not cocaine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).