Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Disciplinary Action Against Waters, 847 N.W.2d 248.

204 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mackey Keyota Drake Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted) (noting that “counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable”).
Thomas Ardell Gentry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Even if the claim were not barred, “[g]enerally, [an appellate court] will not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy,” and “[d]ecisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy,”
Gregory Lee Cobbins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Trial counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable.”
Lyndsey Rae Kidd v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Trial counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Hobart Alvin Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”
Monda Thao v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that the reasonableness of counsel’s conduct is judged in view of the facts at the time of the conduct).
State of Minnesota v. Rustin Kent Hartland Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” –67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted) (stating that “[t]rial counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable”).
Jamel Daniel Hoard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (“Consecutive sentencing of multiple felonies with multiple victims is permissive and within the broad discretion of the district court.” (quotation omitted)); (“When both consecutive and concurrent sentencing options are authorized by the Sen
Rojelio Castillo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jermaine Kershawn Perry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
6 to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted) (noting that “counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable”).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Joseph Mirkovich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, [appellate courts] make a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Livinus Ndubisi Ezeobi Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, [appellate courts] make a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
9 Appellant alleges that his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the admissibility of significant-relationship evidence at the omnibus hearing was “not a reasonable tactic that a competent attorney would have made.” “Generally, we will not review an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.” d 248, 267 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. William Francis Melchert-Dinkel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Laverne DeBerry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Assessing the sufficiency of the evidence involves “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that the reasonableness of counsel’s conduct is judged in view of the facts at the time of the conduct).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Assessing the sufficiency of the evidence involves “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. John Everette Pierce Minn. Ct. App. 2015
sistance of counsel “To prevail on a claim that his counsel was ineffective, [an] appellant must demonstrate that (1) the attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of 19 reasonableness; and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for the attorney’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” d 248, 266 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” -67 (Minn. 2014) (internal quotes omitted) (noting that “counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable”).
Darwin Ray Battle-Bey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Megan Marie Kochendorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted) (noting that “counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable”).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
were sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Thomas Boutilier Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION Sufficiency of Evidence On review of a sufficiency-of-evidence claim, we conduct “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An error is plain if it is 3 clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Yia Her Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Javon Lamar Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Assessing the sufficiency of the evidence involves “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Forrest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (“[A]ttempted first-degree felony murder (drive-by shooting), in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.17 (2012), 609.185(a)(3)”).
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotations omitted) (noting that “counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable”).
Francisco Herrera Sanchez v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064).
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (noting that “counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable”).
State of Minnesota v. Brian J. Machacek Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To prevail on a claim that his counsel was ineffective,” a defendant must prove that counsel’s “performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” which is “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” –67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ryan Williams 862 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 2015
As we explained in State v. Vang, because a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 30 years is “not tantamount to a death sentence” when applied to a juvenile offender, it “does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and the principles of Miller.” -63 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Deante Akis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An error affected the appellant’s substantial rights if it “was prejudicial, meaning that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.”
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos 861 N.W.2d 655 Minn. 2015
“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; *661 usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”
John Stephen Woodward v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jerry Wayne Gerrard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Casey Craig Schueneman v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Consecutive sentencing of multiple felonies with multiple victims is permissive and within the broad discretion of the district court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Mikell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pedro Maldono Rodriguez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Under the plain-error test, an appellant must show that there was (1) an error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.”
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
We have held that this difference in wording is “not trivial” because the “ ‘United States Supreme Court has upheld punishments that, although they may be cruel, are not unusual.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Trial counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable,” and “a party claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must prove both deficient performance and prejudice,”