DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Schneider v. State, 725 N.W.2d 516.

89 citing documents.

  • Danny Hamilton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    An ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim “is not barred by Knaffla because [appellant] could not have known of ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel at the time of his direct appeal.”
  • Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (concluding that an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate- counsel claim premised upon an appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective- assistance-of-trial-counsel claim “is not barred by Knaffla because Schneider could not have known of ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel at the
  • Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Willie James Patterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    And appellate counsel need not raise all possible claims on appeal; a claim need not be raised if “appellate counsel could have legitimately concluded that [it] would not [prevail].”
  • State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Fitzgerald, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Fitzgerald, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
  • Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
  • Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
    Appellate counsel has no duty to raise all possible issues on appeal, and may choose to argue “only the most meritorious claims.” (explaining that an appellate counsel has “no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious issues”) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
  • Jackson v. State 817 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 2012
    To the contrary, we have repeatedly said that “appellate counsel does not have a duty to include all possible claims on direct appeal, but rather is permitted to argue only the most meritorious claims.” (brackets eliminated) (); see also Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 754 , 103 S.Ct.
  • Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
    522 n. 3 (Minn.2007) (explaining that a district court's failure to sua sponte order a Frye-Mack hearing was not plain error be *711 cause the "the decision of trial counsel to forgo a Frye-Mack hearing was a permissible strategic and tactical decision"); see also Taylor v. State, 62 So.3d 1101, 1118 (Fla.2011) (sta
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Caldwell 803 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2011
  • Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
  • Reed v. State 793 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Ali 775 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    521-22 & n. 3 (Minn.2007) (discussing strategic bases for defendant to forgo a Frye-Mack hearing and to save the challenge for a vigorous cross-examination of the state’s experts).
  • Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
  • Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
  • Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
  • Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
  • Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
    4 But we have said that “[cjlaims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal are not barred by the Knaffla rule in a first postconviction appeal because they could not have been brought at any earlier time.” Leake, d at 536
  • Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
  • Gustafson v. State 754 N.W.2d 343 Minn. 2008
    ” A new trial will be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence if the petitioner establishes that the evidence “(1) was not known to the defendant or his counsel at the time of trial; (2) could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; (3) is not cumulative, impeaching, or
  • Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
  • Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
  • Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
  • Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
    We have said that “[a]ppellate counsel need not raise all possible claims on direct appeal, and a claim need not be raised if ‘appellate counsel could have legitimately concluded that [it] would not [prevail].’” Leake, d at 536 (Minn.2007) ().
  • Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007
  • Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007