Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite Reed v. State, 793 N.W.2d 725.
- Tscheu v. State 829 N.W.2d 400 Minn. 2013
-
Tscheu v. State
829 N.W.2d 400
Minn. 2013
-37 (Minn.2010); , 711 n. 4 (Minn.2005); (electing not to decide whether the petitioner’s claims were Knaffla barred because they failed on the merits).
- Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
- Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
- Martin v. State 825 N.W.2d 734 Minn. 2013
-
Martin v. State
825 N.W.2d 734
Minn. 2013
Under the Strickland test, a defendant must show that (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
- State v. R.H.B. 821 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2012
- State v. R.H.B. 821 N.W.2d 817 Minn. 2012
- Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
-
Carlton v. State
816 N.W.2d 590
Minn. 2012
ewart's postconviction petition for failure to timely file his petition, we cited Ortiz for the proposition that Stewart's claims “should not be considered on the merits,'' because " ‘limitation provisions in a statutorily created cause of action are jurisdictional, requiring dismissal for failure to comply.’ ” Stewart, d at 34 (quoting Ortiz, d at 122 ); (citing Stewart and Ortiz as examples of decisions in which we have "recognized the distinction between filing requirements that prescribe a d
- State v. Ali 806 N.W.2d 45 Minn. 2011
- Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
- Montanaro v. State 802 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 2011
- Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
- Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
- Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011
- Buckingham v. State 799 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 2011