Cited by

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

347 citing documents.

Reginald Bruce Long v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Reginald Bruce Long v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
510 (Minn. 2013) (defendant whose counsel failed to follow through with obtaining the murder victim’s 9 cellphone records when the defense was built around a phone call had “made sufficient allegations that counsel’s assistance fell below an objective standard of
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
to support his argument that his counsel’s failure to challenge the lab results is reviewable trial strategy.
Kodjo Agbelengeor Anyide-Ocloo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kodjo Agbelengeor Anyide-Ocloo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We review the denial of a postconviction evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion,” but resolve any doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing in favor of the petitioner
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Warzecha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We ordinarily “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Keon Malone Mangun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Keon Malone Mangun Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hector Martinez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Carlos Heard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amir Abd El Malak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Any doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the defendant seeking relief.”
Hector Martinez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Phillip Anthony Roberts v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Phillip Anthony Roberts 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).
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lamar George Houston, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven David Pawliszko v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
Lincoln Lamar Caldwell v. State of Minnesota 853 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The two prongs of the Strickland test are: (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.”
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
counsel, a defendant is required to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the two-prong test announced in Strickland.” (quotation omitted).
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(trial strategy); (witness credibility), aff'd 508 U.S. 366 , 113 S.Ct.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by