Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493.

347 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Edward Everett Urbanek. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]rial tactics should not be reviewed by an appellate court, which unlike the counsel, has the benefit of hindsight.” (quotation omitted); d 804, 817 (Minn. 2013) (stating that the supreme court has “cautioned against relying on hindsight when reviewing decisions made by trial counsel”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
denial of relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we consider the “ court’s factual findings that are supported in the record, conduct a de novo review of the legal implication of th ose facts on the ineffective assistance claim, and either affirm the court’s decision or conclude that the court abused its discretion because postconviction relief is warranted.” -04 (Minn. 2013) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 for postconviction relief, including a denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
Oji Konata Markham, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[W]e review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, including a denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
Johnathan Bernard Edwards, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
7 Edwards argues that even though appellate courts generally do not review trial strategy, this court should “reject” this approach.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-1846 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Theodore Pierre Jerry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Chester Lee Grauberger. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ernesto Reyes-Alcazar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When reviewing “a postconvic tion court’s denial of relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we will consider the court’s factual findings that are supported in the record, [and] conduct a de novo review of the legal implication of those facts on the ineffective assistance claim.” -04 (Minn. 2013).
Dane Joseph Riley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(listing cases deferring to counsel’s choice of trial strategy).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Deontray Vershon Tate, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Thomas John Rassmussen, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 493, 503 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Faron Wayne Ruel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-0489 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A new trial may be granted because of perjured testimony when the testimony is fal se, without the testimony the factfinder might have reached a different conclusion, and “ the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.” State v. Nicks , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
John Stephen Woodward, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]o receive an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant is required to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidenc e, would satisfy the two -prong test announced in Strickland v. Washington.” State v. Nicks , (M inn.
Samuel Johosephat Taylor, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” State v. Nicks , –04 (Minn. 2013).
Adnan Mohamed Ali, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Any doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the defendant seeking relief.”
Robert Sam Raisch, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N An appellate court reviews the “denial of a postconviction pe tition, including the denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Nicks, 3
Jeremia Joseph Loper, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts “review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, including a denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
Esteban Trevino, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Any doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing shou ld be resolved in favor of the defendant seeking relief.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Nicks , -04 (Minn. 2013).
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
al of relief on a claim 16 of ineffective assistance of counsel, we “consider the court’s factual findings that are supported in the record, conduct a de novo review of the legal implication of those facts on the ineffective assistance claim, and either affirm the court’s decision or conclude that the court abused its discretion because postconviction relief is warranted.” -04 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jermaine Sylvester Watkins, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 493, 503 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
nial of relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we will consider the court’s factual findings that are supported in the record, conduct a de novo review of the legal implication of those facts on the ineffective assistance claim, and either affirm the court’s decision or conclude that the court abused its discretion because postconviction relief is warranted.” -04 (Minn. 2013).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: L. M. W. and H. E. P., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
And we “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.” (citation omitted).
Antonio Xavier Daniels, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jason Edward Banks, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A16-1196 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We ordinarily “give trial counsel wide latitude to determ ine the best strategy for the client.” (stating “[w]e will generally not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy” and that “[t]he extent of trial counsel’s investigation is considered part of trial strategy”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Wilson Nduri Tindi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 493, 511 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Court need not speculate about what might have swayed a jury.” 9
A17-0206 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
That presumption is justified in part by the need to “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”
Daniel Onguenyi Nyagoko, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, we review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court “must consider [the petitioner’s] allegations in the light most favorable to him , and also consider the files and records of the proceeding, including the State’s arguments.” -06 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
Michael Robert Robinson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Clayton James Hanks, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brooks v. State 897 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2017