# Sanchez v. State

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · July 18, 2012 · 816 N.W.2d 550

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246295

## Case

- **Full name:** Jorge Alberto SANCHEZ, a/k/a Jorge Alberto Sanchez-Reyes v. STATE of Minnesota
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** July 18, 2012
- **Citations:** 816 N.W.2d 550; 2012 Minn. LEXIS 301; 2012 WL 2913192
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Andersonpaul
- **Judges:** Anderson, Gildea, Paul, Stras
- **Cited by:** 88 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246295

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that “[t]he limited application of tolling in our case law is not dissimilar to the federal courts’ application of equitable tolling in the context of the habeas corpus statute, the federal equivalent of our postconviction statute”
- stating that time limit 5 in subdivision 4(c) is nonjurisdictional but declining to decide whether it is subject to equitable tolling
- rejecting the argument that “an interests-of-justice claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel can arise only once a petitioner subjectively knows that his counsel was ineffective” (emphasis omitted)

## Opinion text

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice
(concurring).
For reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 616-17 (Minn.2012), I would not write as broadly as the court does and would not draw comparison to the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006), or to the cases recognizing equitable tolling of that statute’s provisions. Otherwise, I join in the court’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8246295. Public record. Not legal advice.