Cited by

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

355 citing documents.

Matthew Keely Hartley v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
E.g. State v. Nicks , -08 (Min n. 2013) (stating that, while investigations are part of trial strategy, an ineffective-assistance claim was reviewable because trial counsel’s failure to obtain phone records was not a considered and rejected course of action, but an unreasonable failure to investigate a central part of counsel’s
Ronnie Bila Shaka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687– 88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jerome Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
claim.” -04 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. DaJuan Wendell Webster Rayford Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client,” and “the extent of any investigation is a part of trial strategy and, thus, should not be readily second -guessed.” State v. Nicks
Donald Lester Milks, III v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Norman Darnell Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”
Christian David-Robert Wille v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Darrell Wayne Brownbull, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.” State v. Nicks , (quotation omitted).
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 v. Rani Lee Carpenter 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 v. Antonio Deandre Johnson, Jr. 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. D. K. Z Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Troy Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. A. P. L Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Theodore Pierre Jerry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Chester Lee Grauberger Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Maslah Abdirahman Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ernesto Reyes-Alcazar v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(listing cases deferring to counsel’s choice of trial strategy).
State of Minnesota v. John Willard Greywind, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Deontray Vershon Tate v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Thomas John Rassmussen, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 493, 503 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Cairo Melancon Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Faron Wayne Ruel v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Alan Jon Nagle 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 v. Buk Gaak Gany Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jerome Doby 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” State v. Nicks , –04 (Minn. 2013).
Adnan Mohamed Ali v. State of Minnesota 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. v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Antone Larron Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Nicks , -04 (Minn. 2013).
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Lance Arnold Kingbird Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jermaine Sylvester Watkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 493, 503 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Dale David Lott 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jason Edward Banks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Andre Jones 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 v. Thomas Kendricks, III Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Wilson Nduri Tindi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Sean Patrick Brinkman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 493, 511 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Jameson Ojibway Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Court need not speculate about what might have swayed a jury.” 9

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by