Cited by

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

87 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that appellate court need not address both parts of Strickland test if one is determinative).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5 DECISION I. “[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. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Larry Dean Mensing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Larry Dean Mensing v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
nsel’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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)); (stating that a reviewing court need not address both parts of the Strickland test if one is determinative).
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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.”
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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.”
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Brittny Nicole Ziegler 855 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brittny Nicole Ziegler 855 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Whether the admission of evidence violates a criminal defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” d 775, 786 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Juan Jasso, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Juan Jasso, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In order to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that “(1) his trial attorneys’ performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his attorneys’ errors, 6 the outcome of the trial would have been different.”
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The existence of premeditation is generally inferred from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
bjective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” 2 When the district court grants an evidentiary hearing, “[w]e 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 v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013