DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

316 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984).
  • 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
    To establish his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant 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.”
  • Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Ineffective-counsel claims Appellate courts analyze postconviction ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims “under the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, [2064] (1984).”
  • Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Maurice Level Ward, Sr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    6 C. Ineffective assistance of counsel “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.”
  • Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Appellate courts “will generally not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.”
  • Joseph Anthony Roberson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, an appellant 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 4 but for counsel’s errors.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)).
  • State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Bahtuoh 840 N.W.2d 804 Minn. 2013
    See, (rejecting an ineffective-assistance claim and observing that the “conduct at issue arguably falls within trial strategy and therefore is not reviewable”).
  • Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
  • Hooper v. State 838 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 2013
    See, n. 3 (Minn.2013) (declining to address whether the exceptions to the Knaffla rule remain applicable to petitions for postconviction relief because the State did not raise the issue); , 8 n. 3 (Minn.2013) (declining to reach the *788 issue of "whether the Knaffla exceptions remain applicable to petitions for postconviction relief” because the State did not raise the issue); , 210 n. 3 (Minn.2013) (concluding that this court need not address "whether the exceptions
  • State v. Nicks 831 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 2013