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”
How later courts described this case
- 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”
- collecting cases from states that recognize equitable tolling in post-conviction actions and concluding that “[w]e have not found any state that applies a test less stringent than the federal Holland test in the context of postconviction relief’
- suggesting that the 2-yeár limitations period in the postconviction statute could theoretically be tolled if the petitioner showed that he had diligently pursued his claim and was prevented from filing on time by extraordinary circumstances
- stating that time limit 5 in subdivision 4(c) is nonjurisdictional but declining to decide whether it is subject to equitable tolling
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STRAS, Justice
(concurring).
For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Carlton v. State, 816 N.W.2d 590, 616-17 (Minn.2012), I would not have considered Sanchez’s claim that he was entitled to have the time limitation in Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c) (2010), equitably tolled while he was in Mexico. Otherwise, I join the opinion of the court.