Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Leake v. State, 767 N.W.2d 5.

72 citing documents.

Charles Calvin Lockhart v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In other words, “a defendant must show that counsel’s errors actually had an adverse effect.” (quotation omitted).
Sean William Roulo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In other words, “a defendant must show that counsel’s errors actually had an adverse effect.” (quotation omitted).
Cedric Lamont Berry v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2026
A reasonable probability means “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Leake v. State, 13 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Louis Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Louis Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“A reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Drew Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Steven Jonas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(noting that an appellate court “need not analyze both prongs if either one is determinative”).
State of Minnesota v. Jamal L. Smith 9 N.W.3d 543 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jamal L. Smith 9 N.W.3d 543 Minn. 2024
The appellant bears the burden of proof, and we “need not analyze both prongs if either one is determinative.”
Sheila Maurise Burski v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Malachi Henessey Rodriguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Malachi Henessey Rodriguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David NMN Alonzo Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Abdulahi Dahir Salad Minn. Ct. App. 2022
An objective standard of reasonableness is the level of “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would employ under similar circumstances.”
John Thomas Owen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The first Strickland prong—whether counsel’s performance fell below an 9 objective standard of reasonableness—is generally met if the attorney demonstrates a level of “customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Wlemonger Emmanuel Deward Minn. Ct. App. 2022
An objective standard of reasonableness is the level of “customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Lynn Baldwin Minn. Ct. App. 2022
An objective standard of reasonableness is the level of “customa ry skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” Leake v. State
State of Minnesota v. Cassandra Lynn Sheimo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Jamia Lee Griffith v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining that i f appellant fails to meet one prong of the analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel, the other need not be analyzed).
State of Minnesota v. Zackary Andrew Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Stephen Schuety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kevin Scott Smith v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jerome Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. DaJuan Wendell Webster Rayford Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Miguel Angel Rodriguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Negase Asefaw Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Norman Darnell Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Carr Leon Hagerman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(quoting Leake v. State , ).
State of Minnesota v. James Robert Bazoff Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael David Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David Allen Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. John Willard Greywind, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Isidro Carranza Minn. Ct. App. 2018
counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” Leake v. State , (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)) (other citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Augustine Corona Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To prevail on an ineffective -assistance-of-counsel claim, a petitioner must “demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness , and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.”
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Lavaughn McGowan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A re asonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Leake v. State , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Jerome Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To preva il on such a claim, an appellant must “demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probab ility exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” d 5, 10 (Minn. 2009) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 −88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064 −65).
State of Minnesota v. Renae Dawn Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Leake v. State , (quotation omitted).
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant “must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S. Ct. at 12 2064).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan George Oliver Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To prevail on such a claim, an appellant must “demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell be low an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” Leake v. State , (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064-65).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Kenneth Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assi stance of counsel, an appellant must “demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performan ce fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probab ility exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” d 5, 10 (Minn. 2009) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064-65).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: A.G. and A.H., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Generally, in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a party must demonstrate that “counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and “a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.”
State of Minnesota v. Antion Deion Shelby, a/k/a Antione Tony Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2017
For Shelby to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective, he must show both that his “(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective stan dard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Steven Mittelsted Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate courts “ need not analyze both prongs if either one is determinative .” Leake v. State
Charles Kwadzo Sokpa-Anku v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Charles Kwadzo Sokpa-Anku v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984); ).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 695, 104 S. Ct. at 2068-69
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 been different.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064–65 (1984)).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joel Spiegel Minn. Ct. App. 2016