Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814.

160 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Casey James Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Under the second part of the Strickland test, [the court] determine[s] whether a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” –45 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
The United States and Minnesota Constitutions each “guarantee a criminal defendant the right to due process.” (plurality opinion); accord U.S. Const. amend.
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
Kristin Marie Poeschel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 871 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristin Marie Poeschel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 871 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Poeschel also contends that the revocation of her driver’s license must be rescinded “because law enforcement violated [her] fundamental due process rights under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.” “Whether a due process violation has occurred presents a question of constitutional law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota 870 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.” d 814, 836 (Minn. 2012).
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota 869 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2015
Edbert Neal Williams v. State of Minnesota 869 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2015
Finally, Williams argues that he has a freestanding “interests of justice” claim, -47 (Minn. 2012) (plurality opinion).
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Further, Abdillahi’s assertion that his right to due process was violated because his postconviction attorney did not timely challenge K.O.’s competency is not relevant because due process refers to government actors and his attorney is a private party whose conduct “generally lies beyond the scope of the United States Constitution.” 1 Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the district court to determine that it was not satisfied that the witnesses’ testimony was false, the
State of Minnesota v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Indeed, even the supreme court “typically will not award a criminal appellant a new trial in the absence 3 of prejudicial error.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must demonstrate 8 that (1) “counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shelby Ivan Charles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Meghan Kathleen Quigley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Meghan Kathleen Quigley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Luke Mathias Erkkila Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Luke Mathias Erkkila Minn. Ct. App. 2014
tion, showed remorse for his crime, has a scant criminal record, and has an alternative chemical dependency treatment plan available in a locked facility.” “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.” d 814, 836 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Dean James Roehler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dean James Roehler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 DECISION “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
In Re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Jeffers J. TSCHUMY, Ward 853 N.W.2d 728 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Richard Dobson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[I]f factfinders are exposed to the opinions of the government’s expert witnesses, a defendant must have an equal opportunity to present to the factfinders the opposing views of the defendant’s experts.”).
State of Minnesota v. Christian Phillip Oberender Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christian Phillip Oberender Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Whether a due process violation has occurred presents a question of constitutional law, which we review de novo.”
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[W]hen scientific evidence is a significant factor at trial, one basic tool that must be available to indigent defendants is access to the assistance of an expert for conducting professional examinations, consulting on possible affirmative defenses or trial strategies, and preparing to cross-ex
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION “When a defendant initially files a direct appeal and then moves for a stay to pursue postconviction relief, we review the postconviction court’s decisions using the same standard that we apply on direct appeal.” review denied (Minn. Sept.