Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Aaron Joseph Morrow v. State of Minnesota, 886 N.W.2d 204.

18 citing documents.

John Mitchell Wiseman, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Steven Charles Perkins, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
However, “[i]f a defendant raises an issue in a pro se supplemental brief, then counsel’s failure to raise the same issue in the principal brief or at oral argument is not prejudicial.” -07 (Minn. 2016).
Charles Earl Strother, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(noting that appellate counse l may only argue “the most meritorious claims” (quotation omitted)); (noting that appellate counsel “does not have a duty to raise all possible issues, and may choose to present only the most meritorious claims on appeal”).
Lance Arnold Kingbird, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Appellate counsel does not have a duty to raise all possible issues, and may choose to present only the most meritorious claims on appeal.”
Kevin Scott Smith, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“In doing so, we review the postconviction court’s underlying factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Morrow v. State
Minn. 2020
We review the “denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.” (quoting Riley v. State , (M inn.
A19-0676 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Further, when a defendant raises an issue in a pro se supplemental brief, appellate counsel’s failure to raise the same issue is not prejudicial.” -07 (Minn. 2016).
Jonathon Michael Honeycutt, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Appellate counsel does not have a duty to raise all possible issues, and may choose to present only the most meritorious claims on appeal.”
Minn. 2019
Instead, Petersen dedicates a
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The same argument was rejected by the supreme court in Morrow v. State
Theodore Pierre Jerry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Appellate counsel does not have a duty to raise all possible issues, and may choose to present only the most meritorious claims on appeal.” .
Maksud Ul Mahbub, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Appellate counsel does not have a duty to raise all possible issu es, and may choose to present only the most meritorious claims on appeal.”), cert.
Jetaun Helen Wheeler v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jetaun Helen Wheeler v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review the ‘denial of a petition for postconviction relief, as well as a request for an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.’” ().
Denis Alcivar Alvarado-Riera v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Denis Alcivar Alvarado-Riera v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by