Cited by

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

347 citing documents.

Erasmo Monge Rauda, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Any doubts about whether to condu ct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favo r of the defendant seeking relief.”
A16-1713 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Brown 896 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Brown 896 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Carridine v. State , (decisions whether to subpoena a witness and file a motion are matters of trial strategy); (“[T]he extent of any investigation is a part of trial strategy.”); (“Decisions 5 Leatherberry appends four documents to his pro se supplemental brief.
State v. Mosley 895 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2017
State v. Mosley 895 N.W.2d 585 Minn. 2017
It is well-established that we give an attorney’s trial-strategy decisions “particular deference.”
Ralph Ian Richardson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate courts “review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, including denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
Seth Clayton Francis Crawford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Seth Clayton Francis Crawford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Denis Alcivar Alvarado-Riera v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Denis Alcivar Alvarado-Riera v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Any doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the defendant seeking relief.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Donell Holifield Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Donell Holifield Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Timothy Ayman Bakdash v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review the denial of a postconviction petition, “including the denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
First, “the defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–96, 104 S. Ct. 2052).
State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marco Anthony Gresham Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“We give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”).
Enamidem Celestine Okon v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Enamidem Celestine Okon v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alvin Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When reviewing a postconviction court’s denial of relief, “[t]he scope of [an appellate court’s] review of factual matters is to determine whether there is sufficient support in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.”
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James Donald Dahl v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Patrick Samuel Meszaros v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
James Donald Dahl v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael William Kirby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
Strategic choices made by an attorney after a thorough investigation of the facts and law are “virtually unchallengeable.” 6 We do not address the State’s suggestion that we should abandon our rule that an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is not Knaffla-barred when review of the claim requires examination of evidence outside the trial record and additional fact-finding by the postconviction court.
Michael Delaney Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jonathan Nicholas Turner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. J. E. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jonathan Nicholas Turner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. J. E. H. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Delaney Harris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aloeng Kelly Vang, A14-1574 881 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Aloeng Kelly Vang, A14-1574 881 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016