Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Stone v. Harold Chevrolet, 692 N.W.2d 888.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Mario Pedro Moreno, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ernesto Reyes-Alcazar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable, and we give particular deference to trial strategy.” d 888, 892 (Minn. 2005) (citation omitted).
Jeremia Joseph Loper, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Carney v. State , –91 (Minn. 2005).
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable.”
John Mark Hentges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 232-33 (determining that petitioner’s claims were Knaffla-barred where the direct appeal had proceeded to conclusion and the petitioner raised issues in his postconviction petition that were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal); (same); (same); (stating the rule as “[w]hen a direct appeal has been taken and litigated .
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Nicholas Aase Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-91 (Minn. 2005).1 To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must show that “(1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 1 Ineffective
State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
Brocks v. State 753 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
But, under the second exception to the Knaffla rule, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, even if “known but not raised at the time of direct appeal, may be brought in a postconviction petition if the claim cannot be ‘evaluated by an appellate court on direct appeal based on the briefs and trial court transcript, without any additional factfinding.’ ” ().
Gail v. State 732 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2007
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
Erickson v. State 725 N.W.2d 532 Minn. 2007
Bruestle v. State 719 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 2006
Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
Jihad v. State 714 N.W.2d 445 Minn. 2006
“A postconviction court, however, may hear previously known or considered claims if (1) a claim is so novel that the legal basis was not available on direct appeal or (2) fairness requires and the petitioner did not ‘deliberately and inexcusably’ fail to raise the issue on appeal.” Mckenzie, d at 644 ().
White v. State 711 N.W.2d 106 Minn. 2006
McKenzie v. State 707 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2005
Azure v. State 700 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2005
Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252 , d at 741 .