Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Andersen v. State, 830 N.W.2d 1.

321 citing documents.

Justin Lee Ironhawk v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Mitchell Le Dac Ho v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]here is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.” Andersen v. State
In the Matter of the Welfare of: R. R., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
Matthew Keely Hartley v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. David Ronald Leonard Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Relying on Crawford, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[a] successful Confrontation Clause claim has three prer equisites: the statem ent in question was testimonial, the statement was admitted for the truth of the matte r asserted, and the defendant was unable to cross-examine the declarant.”
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Renault Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Under the Strickland test, Fry must show that “(1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” Id.
Jetaun Helen Wheeler v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” (quotation omitted)).8 The postconviction court found Wheeler’s testimony during the plea hearing merited credence.
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jerome Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minnesota courts will “gener ally not review an ineffe ctive-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.”
Tyrese Thomas v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“When a claim of 1 In one of his postconviction petitions, Thomas asserts that he should be allowed to retroactively accept the pretrial plea offe r, arguing that he only rejected it due to advice from counsel, which he now claims was ineffective.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
Kenneth Eugene Andersen, Minn. 2020
Andersen v. State (Andersen II )
State of Minnesota v. Randy Scott Bennett, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
at 751-52; -12 (Minn. 2013) (stating that the detailed colloquy showed appellant “plainly entered a valid waiver of his right to testify on the record”).
Simon Duku Boateng v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. TreJuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Under the Strickland test, [a criminal defendant] must demonstrate that (1) his [or her] counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.”
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal or it is Knaffla-barred.” Andersen v. State
Jose Angel Trevino v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Waiver of Right to Testify A defendant’s right to testify in his own defense is “protected by the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution and Minnesota law.” Andersen v. State
State of Minnesota v. Ayanna Laverne Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 59 & n.9, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1369 & n.9 (2004)).
Prince Lashone Holt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kerrell Levell Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal or it is Knaffla-barred.” Andersen v. State
Antone Larron Owens v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A reviewing court “considers the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury in making a determination of prejudice.”
A18-1962 A18-1963 Philip Lee Carlson (A18-1162, A18-1962), Virginia Marie Carlson (A18-1163, A18-1963) v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Ernesto Torres Garcia v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Andersen v. State , (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Mariel Alexandra Grimm Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Johnathan Bernard Edwards v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A reviewing court “considers the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury in making a determination of prejudice.” Andersen v. State
Daniel Leith Renville v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Sam James Lemieux Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael David Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Troy Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Andersen v. State , State v. Bobo
State of Minnesota v. James Antuan Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Admission of an out -of-court statement violates the Confrontation Clause when “ the statement in question was testimonial, the statement was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and the defendant was unable to cross -examine the declarant.” (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 & n.9, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1369 & n.9 (2004) ).
State of Minnesota v. Gregorio Zuniga-Vallejo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Andersen v. State , (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)).
State of Minnesota, vs Phillip Julius Butenhoff, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Poole 921 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Poole 921 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 60.02 ); Rossberg v. State , , 791 (Minn. 2016) (postconviction relief); Andersen v. State , , 12 (Minn. 2013) (obtaining an evidentiary hearing in criminal matters after waiving the right to testify); Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., , 783 (Minn. 2004) (summary judgment); In re Rahr Malting Co. , , 576 (Minn. 2001) (whether something is a trade secret); In re Welfare of L.L.P.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Sean Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A successful Confrontation Clause claim has three prerequisites: the statement in question was testimonial, the statement was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and the defendant was unable to cross-examine the declarant.” (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 59 & n.9, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1369 & n.9 (2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Melie Ike Ilogu Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Alan Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ellis-Strong, d at 535 ().
Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
ng that all of the claimed instances of ineffective assistance were matters of trial strategy, none of which “indicate[d] representation below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id.; see also Mosley, d at 592 (stating that “decisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy, which [an appel late court] will not review ” (quotation omitted)); Andersen v. State , (defining “trial strategy” to include investigation and selection of evidence).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Thomas Bandow Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ellis-Strong, d at 535 ().
State of Minnesota v. Erik Walden Narveson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Rufus Cornelius Loyd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Albert George McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A defendant’s right to testify is protected by the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution and Minnesota law.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Alan Kepner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Andersen v. State , 12 (Minn. 2013).
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, State v. Andersen ( Andersen I ), , 323 (Minn. 2010), and affirmed the postconviction court's summary denial of his first postconviction petition, Andersen v. State ( Andersen II ), , 14 (Minn. 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Twin Cities Care Services Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellate courts “will generally not review an ineffective-assistance- of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.” Andersen v. State
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Dean Smaller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Paul Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But “[w]e will generally not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counse l claim that is based on trial strategy.”
Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lopez-Ramos 913 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 2018