Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414.

320 citing documents.

Jonathan Nicholas Turner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We have “repeatedly stated that we generally will not review attacks on counsel’s trial strategy.”
Ta-Raj Tondell Satari Benness v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ta-Raj Tondell Satari Benness v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1 (2014); (holding that, in order to prevail on a request for a hearing, a petitioner must “allege facts that, if proven, would entitle him [or her] to the requested relief”).
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christopher Joseph Washington v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christopher Joseph Washington v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The reasonableness of counsel’s performance is judged by an objective standard of “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Izell Wright Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gregory Lee Cobbins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lyndsey Rae Kidd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Izell Wright Robinson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 10; (“Our reluctance to scrutinize trial tactics is grounded in the public policy of allowing counsel to have the flexibility to represent a client to the fullest extent possible.” (quotation omitted)).
Gregory Lee Cobbins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Counsel’s performance is judged by an objective standard of “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
Lyndsey Rae Kidd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Counsel’s performance is judged by an objective standard of “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
Monda Thao v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Leithe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Leithe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that the “extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy,” which this court generally does not review).
Monda Thao v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[t]he extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy,” which is generally not 6 reviewable).
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We do not review issues of trial strategy, and “[t]he extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy.”
Theodore Lee Wicken v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Theodore Lee Wicken v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Laurie Lea Oliveira v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560 875 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jaime Marquez Guevara v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 414, 421 (Minn. 2004).
Jaime Marquez Guevara v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
Rene Julian McKenzie v. State of Minnesota 872 N.W.2d 865 Minn. 2015
d 414, 423 (Minn. 2004).
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Vincent Vargas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “[t]he extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy,” which is generally not reviewable).
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The showing required for a petitioner to receive an evidentiary hearing is lower than that required to receive a new trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alfonzo Benjamin Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
At the hearing, the district court may question “jurors who were privy to the alleged misconduct in the presence of all interested parties.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Objective reasonableness is “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).