Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775.

88 citing documents.

Crow Wing County State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee LaFlex Thissen, J. Concurring in part, dissenting in part, … Minn. 2026
(concluding that the defendant “conceal[ing] [the victim]’s body” supported a finding of premeditation); (concluding that the defendant’s “refus[al] to call the police” supported a finding of premeditation); (concluding that burning the victim’s body was an “effort[] to hide” the body and strongly supported that the defendant premeditated the killing).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Ignacio Sardina-Padilla 7 N.W.3d 585 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Angel Ignacio Sardina-Padilla 7 N.W.3d 585 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(noting that a reviewing court need not address both parts of the Strickland test if one is determinative).
State of Minnesota v. Cortez Deon Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(evaluating only harmless error).
State of Minnesota v. Percy Leonard French Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lee Edward Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. James Antuan Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A Confrontation Clause error is harmless when the verdict is “surely unattributable to the error.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Anthony John Sawina Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Antwan Mister Carpenter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts “need not address both prongs if one is determin ative.” Hawes v. State
State of Minnesota v. Mark Thomas McGowan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Antwan James Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Hawes v. State , , 786 (Minn. 2013).
Gideon Charles Arrington, II v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698, 104 S. Ct. at 2070).
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2070 (1984)).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And, because a reviewing court need not address both prongs of the Strickland test if one is dispositive, we need not reach the second prong.
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larsen 901 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-83 (Minn. 2013) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Antion Deion Shelby, a/k/a Antione Tony Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate courts “ review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Earl Leatherberry Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.”
State of Minnesota v. Blaine Eldon Raincloud Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Brian Keith Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A violation of the Confrontation Clause occurs when the accused is not afforded the right to confront the witnesses against him.”
Ronnie Jerome Jackson, III v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2070 (1984)).
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.”
State of Minnesota v. Edward Antonio Zappa Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edward Antonio Zappa Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 775, 786 (Minn. 2013).
Seth Clayton Francis Crawford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Seth Clayton Francis Crawford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Charles Kwadzo Sokpa-Anku v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Charles Kwadzo Sokpa-Anku v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.”
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016