Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Disciplinary Action Against Schaefer, 673 N.W.2d 144.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2026
evidence if one had been made.”
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2026
However, the supreme court may still “address an issue in the interests of justice if addressing the issue will not work an unfair surprise on a party.”
State of Minnesota v. Quinten Devon Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Abdusalam Omar Hussein Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-33 (Minn. App. 2002) (concluding that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress DNA evidence), rev’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Torrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
10 Appellate courts review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because they “involve mixed questions of law and fact.”
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Steven Jonas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See 15 (noting that “[a] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not rest on the failure of an attorney to make a motion that would have been denied if it had been made”).
Fidele Ndaruhutse v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To establish prejudice, Ndaruhutse “must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s ineffective representation, he would not have entered his plea.”
State of Minnesota v. Juan Eduardo Rodriguez Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“On the actual prejudice prong, the reviewing court considers all of the evidence before the district court.” d 144, 148 (Minn. 2004).
Carlos Kendall Duncan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not rest on the failure of an attorney to make a motion that would have been denied if it had been made.”
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin John Joyce Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But “[a] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not rest on the failure of an attorney to make a motion that would have been denied if it had been made.” d 144, 148 (Minn. 2004).
Mario Pedro Moreno v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not rest on the failure of an attorney to make a motion that would have been denied if it had been made.” d 144, 148 (Minn. 2004).
Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
To establish prejudice, Mason -Kimmons “must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s ineffective representation, he would not have entered his plea.”
David William Reynolds v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Johnson v. State , (Johnson I ).
State of Minnesota v. Brenda Lanise Bethune Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 144, 150 (Minn. 2004).
Mitchell Le Dac Ho v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2020
cites Johnson v. State , and State v. Grunig , for the proposition that the interests of justice warrant the de novo review of the voluntariness of the confession.
State of Minnesota v. Angela Lorraine Loose Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This rule exists both “to enco urage the development of a factual basis for claims at the district court level,” Johnson v. State , and to “allow the [district] court to correct any alleged errors before a .
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
Antone Larron Owens v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Johnson v. State , d 144, 148 (Minn. 2004) (“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not rest on the failure of an attorney to make a motion that would have been denied if it had been made.”).
State of Minnesota v. Mariel Alexandra Grimm Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Renae Dawn Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 895 N.W.2d 623 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Philip Lee Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Edward Morey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In cases in which the [defendant] pleads guilty, the [defendant] must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s ineffective representation, he would not have entered his plea.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
(“One purpose of this rule is to encourage the development of a factual basis for claims at the district court level.”).
State of Minnesota v. Toby Earl Johnson 851 N.W.2d 60 Minn. 2014
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(addressing whether the state waived an argument).
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
“One purpose of this rule is to encourage the development of a factual basis for claims at the district court level.”
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
149 n. 7 (Minn.2004) (expressly stating that the court is not reaching the question of whether Minn.Stat.
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Foreman 680 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004