Cited by

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

347 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Chevaze Darrell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christopher Joseph Washington v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christopher Joseph Washington 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).
Robert Patrick Butters v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert Patrick Butters v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To satisfy a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “(1) the defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) the defendant must prove 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, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984)).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Lee Hough Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Larry Lee Hough Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellate courts “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”
Mark Oran Schorn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mark Oran Schorn v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gregory Lee Cobbins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lyndsey Rae Kidd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Gregory Lee Cobbins 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).
Lyndsey Rae Kidd 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.” State v. 3 Nicks, (quotation omitted).
Monda Thao v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Monda Thao 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. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, –11 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that defendant was entitled to postconviction evidentiary hearing on claim that he received ineffective assistance due to attorney’s inattention during trial preparation); –15 (Minn. App. 2008) (reviewing whether attorney
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review the court’s legal conclusions de novo.” (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vidale Lee Whitson, Vidale Lee Whitson v. State of Minnesota, C5-02-2108 876 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Daniel Ruiz-Oliva Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonnie Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jason Lonnie Gabbert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ramon Jimenez Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”
Ramon Jimenez Ruiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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).
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Wendell Anthony Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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 v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Moreover, “[a]ny doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the defendant seeking relief.”
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Scott Junker Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kemen Lavatos Taylor, II 869 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2015
To satisfy a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “(1) the defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) the defendant must prove 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 , 104 S.Ct.
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Doppler, d at 633 (stating that matters of trial strategy, including what evidence to present and which witnesses to call, lie within the discretion of trial counsel and will not be second-guessed by appellate courts); d 493, 506 (Minn. 2013) (stating that the extent of any investigation is a part of trial strategy, and includes whether to interview and call prospective witnesses, and should not be readily second-guessed); (stating that an attorney’s strategic decisions include what wi
Hassan Mohamed Abdillahi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015