We affirmed each of the district court's orders denying postconviction relief. See Corrigan v. State, No. A19-0019, 2019 WL 4010308, at *2-5 (Minn.App. Aug. 26, 2019) (holding postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in concluding false-testimony claim lacked substantive merit and other claims were barred under State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976)); Corrigan v. State, No. A20-1323, 2021 WL 2408443, at *2-3 (Minn.App. June 14, 2021) (holding Corrigan's claim that stalking statute was unconstitutionally overbroad was Knaffla-barred because it was known at the time of direct appeal and did not satisfy the novel-legal-issue exception); Corrigan v. State, No. A22-0004, 2022 WL 2659357, at *2-3 (Minn.App. July 11, 2022) (holding district court did not err by summarily denying postconviction relief as time-barred and that Corrigan failed to identify any new interpretation of law by the United States Supreme Court or a Minnesota appellate court that is relevant to his claim to satisfy the exception to Knaffla), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2022).

The district court heard and denied each petition, and this court affirmed. Corrigan v. State, No. A22-0004, 2022 WL 2659357 (Minn.App. July 11, 2022), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2022); Corrigan v. State, No. A20-1323, 2021 WL 2408443 (Minn.App. June 14, 2021);

These facts are set forth in more detail in our prior opinion affirming Corrigan's conviction on direct appeal. See State v. Corrigan, No. A17-1145, 2018 WL 3214271, (Minn.App. July 2, 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 16, 2018) (Corrigan I); see also Corrigan v. State, No. A19-0019, 2019 WL 4010308 (Minn.App. Aug. 26, 2019) (Corrigan II) (affirming denial of Corrigan's first petition for postconviction relief); Corrigan v. State, No. A20-1323, 2021 WL 2408443 (Minn.App. June 14, 2021) (Corrigan III) (affirming denial of Corrigan's second petition for postconviction relief). Corrigan was charged with the crime of stalking, Minn. Stat. § 609.749, subd. 2(2) (2016).