DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Anderson v. Salvation Army, 670 N.W.2d 439.

13 citing documents.

  • Michael David Larson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “We need not address both the performance and prejudice prongs [in the ineffective-assistance-of- counsel analysis] if one is determinative.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    In r eviewing a postconviction court’ s denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, “we resolve any doubts about whether an evidentiary hearing is required in favor of the petitioner.”
  • Paul Ronny Barsness, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Patterson v. State , d 439, 442 (Minn. 2003) .
  • Fox v. State 913 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 2018
    See Patterson v. State , , 442 (Minn. 2003) ("Under the prejudice prong, [the defendant] must allege facts that demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different.").
  • Paul Ronny Barsness, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “We need not address both the performance and prejudice prongs if one is determinative.” Patterson v. State
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “A r easonable probability is a probab ility sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Patterson v. State , (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052 ).
  • Aaron Joseph Morrow v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2016
  • Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “[W]e resolve any doubts about whether an evidentiary hearing is required in favor of the petitioner.”
  • Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
  • Perry v. State 753 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2008
    When we review the decision to deny a postconviction petition without a hearing, “we resolve any doubts about whether an evidentiary hearing is required in favor of the petitioner.” Patterson v. *668 State
  • Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
    In reviewing a postconviction court’s denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, “we resolve any doubts about whether an evidentiary hearing is required in favor of the petitioner.”
  • Taylor v. State 691 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2005
    n. 1 (Minn. 2003) (stating that Miller-El was inapplicable to the standard of review of a postconviction petition).