Cited by

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

71 citing documents.

Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
Randy Leeroyal Swaney v. State of Minnesota 882 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2016
(deciding an ineffective-assistance claim solely on lack of prejudice because that prong was dispositive).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Ivan Kotten Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, 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 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064-65 (1984)).
Jaime Marquez Guevara v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jaime Marquez Guevara v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To prevail on a claim that counsel is ineffective, [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 v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064–65 (1984)).
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Patrick William Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.” Leake v. State, 7 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 687-88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064-65 (1984)).
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Leake v. State (Leake III)
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012