Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 8, 2015No. A13-1040Published

1DissentAnderson, Justice

I respectfully dissent. We have stated that “a convicted defendant is entitled to at least one right of review by an appellate or postconviction court.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). The majority’s decision deprives appellant Jason Matakis of that opportunity.

Matakis filed an admittedly incomplete petition for postconviction relief, just a few days before the 2-year statute of limitations would have expired. See Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(1) (2014). The petition asserted that Matakis’s guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent, but…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. KnafflaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  2. Fratzke v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. Townsend v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
  4. Laine v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API