Cited by

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

320 citing documents.

Luis Esteban Pliego Cortes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Luis Esteban Pliego Cortes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
Gary Cyril Jenco v. Paul James Crowe, M.D., John Y. Hendricks, M.D., North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary Cyril Jenco v. Paul James Crowe, M.D., John Y. Hendricks, M.D., North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
Followed Danny Ortega, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 856 N.W.2d 98 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antawon Antonio Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antawon Antonio Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“In cases in which a petitioner alleges juror misconduct, the trial court may order a hearing with jurors who were privy to the alleged misconduct in the presence of all interested parties.” (citing Schwartz, 258 Minn. at 328, d at 303).
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
Similarly, in Op-sahl v. State, we remanded for an eviden-tiary hearing based, in part, on “affidavits of individuals who claim[ed] to have heard certain state witnesses recant trial testimony.” Opsahl v. State (Opsahl I), 424 (Minn.2004).
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy.” Opsahl 6 v. State
State of Minnesota v. Ali Mehralian Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An objective standard of reasonableness “is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” -21 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 414, 421 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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).
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n [appellant’s] defense and cross-examine the state’s witnesses [ ] represent matters of trial strategy that we will not review for competence.”); d 531, 539 (Minn. 2007) (“Decisions about which witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions of trial strategy that lie within the discretion of trial counsel.”); (“The extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy.”).
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
at 560; Opsahl v. State (Opsahl I), -24 (Minn.2004).
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must show that his trial counsel’s “representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Dobbins, d at 728 (); d *358 5, 10 (Minn.2009) (outlining the test for ineffective assistance of counsel, based on Strickland, 466 U.S at 687-88, 104 S.Ct.