DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Zenanko v. State, 688 N.W.2d 861.

27 citing documents.

  • Douglas Allan Treu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    This exception applies to claims for ineffective assistance of counsel “when the court needs to conduct additional fact -finding to consider the claim on its merits.” ().
  • Alexander John Cookson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    See Eason, d at 268; (where the appellant “failed to establish the prejudice prong of his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim[,]” the supreme court held that “it [was] not necessary to reach the question of whether counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”).
  • Dane Joseph Riley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Fox v. State 913 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 2018
  • Fox v. State 913 N.W.2d 429 Minn. 2018
    Zenanko v. State , , 865 (Minn. 2004).
  • Melde v. State 778 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Melde v. State 778 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
  • Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
  • Fields v. State 733 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2007
  • Fields v. State 733 N.W.2d 465 Minn. 2007
  • Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
  • Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
  • Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
  • Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
    “Review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining ‘whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a post-conviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” ().
  • State v. Cram 718 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 2006
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
  • Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
    In reviewing a postconviction proceeding, we determine “ ‘whether there *445 is sufficient evidence to sustain the post-conviction court’s findings, and a postcon-viction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” ().
  • Lee v. State 717 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 2006
  • Lee v. State 717 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 2006
  • Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
  • Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
    “Review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining ‘whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a post-conviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” ().
  • McDonough v. State 707 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 2006
  • McDonough v. State 707 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 2006
    “Review of a postconviction proceeding is limited to determining “whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the postconviction court’s findings, and a postconviction court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” ().
  • Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
  • Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
    l committed "other irregularities in the actions of counsel for Petitioner which could be presented at the hearing on petition in this matter” as well as "all other legal and equitable grounds that may be discovered during these proceedings.” We do not consider such claims, "because a petitioner’s allegations must be 'more than argumentative assertions without factual support.'” , 864 n. 2 (Minn.2004) ().