Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Cooper v. State, 745 N.W.2d 188.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. 2026
McKinley Juner Phillips v. State of Minnesota 7 N.W.3d 577 Minn. 2024
McKinley Juner Phillips v. State of Minnesota 7 N.W.3d 577 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
Charles Earl Strother, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2020
On direct appeal, we found that Chavez-Nelson’s which was consistent with our case law then and now.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
For example, in Cooper v. State, “the jury sent a note to the trial judge requesting to revie w a state’s witness’ testimony.”
Neal Curtis Zumberge, Minn. 2019
Under the Knaffla rule, “ ‘all claims known but not raised’ at the time of direct appeal are barred from consideration in any subsequent petitions for postconviction relief.” –91 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Knaffla, d at 741).
James Michael Soderbeck, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Accordingly, t he claim is procedurally barred because it was “known or should have been known at the time of a direct appeal.” See Cooper v. State
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
State v. Galvan 912 N.W.2d 663 Minn. 2018
State v. Chavez-Nelson , , 591 (Minn. 2016) ; Cooper v. State , , 194 (Minn. 2008).
Francisco Cleofus Mountain, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The claim is procedurally barred because it was “known or should have been known at the time of a direct appeal.”
State v. Mosley 895 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2017
State v. Mosley 895 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2017
But appellate counsel is not required to raise a claim if counsel “could have legitimately concluded that it would not prevail.” ().
Aaron Joseph Morrow v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2016
Aaron Joseph Morrow v. State of Minnesota 886 N.W.2d 204 Minn. 2016
Under such circumstances, the “verdict indicates that the jury would not have found [the defendant] guilty of first-degree manslaughter, which requires an intent triggered by the heat of passion but no premeditation.”
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shavelle Oscar Chavez-Nelson 882 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2016
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The two-prong Strickland test also applies to ineffective assistance of counsel claims for appellate counsel.”
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McClenton 781 N.W.2d 181 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
*189 (stating jury’s choice to convict defendant of premeditated murder when it had the option to convict him of murder without premeditation indicates it would not have found him guilty of an uninstructed lesser-included offense that did not require premeditation).
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Arredondo v. State 754 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2008
Appellate counsel is not required to raise all possible claims on direct appeal, and counsel need not raise a claim if she “could have legitimately concluded that it would not prevail.”
Perry v. State 753 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2008
Perry v. State 753 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2008
A postconviction court must hold an evidentiary hearing if the petitioner alleges facts that, “if proved, would entitle [the] petitioner to the requested relief.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
Nunn v. State 753 N.W.2d 657 Minn. 2008
But the postconvietion court’s legal determinations, “including legal determinations of ineffective assistance of counsel, * * * are reviewed de novo.” Schneider, d at 520
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ali 752 N.W.2d 98 Minn. Ct. App. 2008