Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Heinkel, 322 N.W.2d 322.

55 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
identification evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
‘Which witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions that lie within the proper discretion of the trial counsel.’” –90 (Minn. 1998) ().
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
lineup identification evidence.”
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
(victim forced to submit to various types of sexual contact and penetration over two-hour period); (over two-hour period, victim com pelled to engage in various types of sexual contact and penetration, culminating in ejaculation onto her body).
State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
King v. State 562 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1997
King v. State 562 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1997
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Guidelines II.D.2.b(2); (particular cruelty of sexual assault justified double departure).
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
An attorney provides effective representation if the attorney “exercise[s] the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under similar circumstances.” see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
In Minnesota, an attorney provides effective representation if the attorney “exercise[s] the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under similar circumstances.” ().
State v. Hatton 409 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
State v. Coe 411 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1987
State v. Hatton 409 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
State v. Coe 411 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1987
State v. Mesich 396 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mesich 396 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Morgan v. State 384 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1986
Morgan v. State 384 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1986
In Minnesota, the test of effective representation by counsel is “whether the attorney * * * exercised the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under similar circumstances.”
State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
State v. Hathaway 379 N.W.2d 498 Minn. 1985
at 382 ; (discussing the factors to be considered).
State v. Best 370 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Best 370 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the supreme court articulated the standard for evaluating effectiveness of counsel: [T]he test is whether the attorney in the case under consideration exercised the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under similar circumstances.
State v. Gobely 366 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1985
State v. Gobely 366 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1985
State v. Head 363 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Head 363 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Daniels 361 N.W.2d 819 Minn. 1985
State v. Bishop, 289 Minn. 188, 194 , *829
Sather v. State 352 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Sather v. State 352 N.W.2d 79 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
State v. Duemke 352 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Duemke 352 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. McLane 346 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. McLane 346 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
State v. Gissendanner 343 N.W.2d 668 Minn. 1984
State v. Patch 329 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1983