Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493.
-
Michael Adam Davis v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
However, “[b]ecause 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. 2026
d 585, 592 (Minn. 2017); see also State v. Nicks , (“We give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The scope of our review of factual matters is to determine whether there is sufficient support in the record to sustain the postconviction court’ s findings.”
- Abdiel Josadac Aguilar-Pineda, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[T]he extent of any investigation is a part of trial strategy and, thus, should not be readily second-guessed.”
-
Cortez Deon Banks, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
However, “[b]ecause 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. 2026
In other words, an appellate court may reverse a district court’s sentencing order if it “is against logic and the facts in the record .”
- Donavon Dexter Boone, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Jose Miguel Reyes-Jovel Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Jose Miguel Reyes-Jovel Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Scott Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Scott Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Juan Pachuco Silva, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Justice King Whitelaw Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Justice King Whitelaw Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
Jennifer Lynn Baldwin, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In her direct appeal, Baldwin asserted that she was 2 Under Strickland, a defendant must prove that (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687- 96 (1984)).
- State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Romaine Anthony Reid Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- Steven Robert Anderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
Steven Robert Anderson v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
And “[b]ecause claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate courts] review the [district] court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
was attempting to peacefully leave the trailer after violently breaking a window while attempting to punch J.R.” 17 conclusions on such questions de novo.” (footnote omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Bryant Wayne Paige Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Wayne Paige
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “consider the [postconviction] court’s factual findings that are supported in the record,” and we “conduct a de novo review of the legal implication of those facts on the ineffective assistance claim.” -04 (Minn. 2013).
- State of Minnesota v. Quinten Devon Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Quinten Devon Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Because trial counsel enjoys “wide latitude” in making strategic decisions, this court will not review trial counsel’s “strategic choices made after [a] thorough investigation of law and facts.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.
- Jeramy John Wharton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
Reginald Scott Hubbard, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The scope of our review of factual 7 matters is limited to determine whether there is sufficient support in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”
- James Ervin Owen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
Vyacheslav Eugeniy Bondarenko, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district 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.” (describing standard in relation to postconviction proceedings).
-
Thomas Gabor Gratzer, petitioner, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 493, 506 (Minn. 2013) (stating that courts “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client”).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
Douglas Edward Simpson, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
for an abuse of discretion.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
19 (Minn. 2013) (“We give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”).
- Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
- Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel present mixed questions of law and fact, “we review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”
-
Connor Jerome Eischens, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts review findings of fact for clear error, and legal conclusions de novo
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To support his argument, -08 (Minn. 2013), but his reliance is misguided.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See State v. Nicks , (“We give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”).