Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mosley, 895 N.W.2d 585.

117 citing documents.

Jordan Lee Wachter v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, [an appellate court] need not consider the other requirement.”
State of Minnesota v. Saliou Kouyate Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Steven Douglas Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review a district court’s application of the Strickland test de novo because it involves a mixed question of law and fact.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Dana John Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, [appellate courts] need not consider the other requirement.”
Richard Theodore Knoll v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6 Strickland requirements, [an appellate court] need not consider the other requirement.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua William Dwyer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Alan Mcraven Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randall Ferrell Decker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Leona Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.” State v. Mosley , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Jerome Stephenson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, [ an appellate c ourt] need not consider the other requirement.” .
Antonio Terrell Beasley v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Alexander James Ray v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, [a court] need not consider the other requirement.”
State of Minnesota v. Trever Joseph Palodichuk Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.”
State of Minnesota v. Randall Jermaine Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2022
If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.” (citation omitted).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Jacquet Deon Munn Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Mosley , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
See State v. Mos ley, 26 (“Generally , [d]ecisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy, which we will not review.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Lahue , –90 (Minn. 1998) (holding that the failure to locate witnesses and de
State of Minnesota v. John Herbert Hodge, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Mosley , (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dale Eugene McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Lamond Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, [this court] need not consider the other requirement.” State v. Mosley , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. James David Wren Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 106, 110 (Minn. 2006) (noting that jury instructions are matters of trial st rategy and an attorney’s failure to object to a jury instruction is therefore not reviewable).
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Brian Lee Wilbur Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Although we review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo, we apply “a strong presumption that an attorney’s performance f alls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,” In re Civ.
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Campbell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“If a claim 7 fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.” (citation omitted).
Mario Pedro Moreno v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.”
State of Minnesota v. Karl Alfredo Rosillo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But “[d]ecisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy, wh ich [appellate courts] will not review.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Darryl Donail Walker, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a de fendant must show that (1) his attorney’s performance fell below an obj ective standard of reasonabl eness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Nikolas Rowland Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.”
Pao Choua Xiong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
ngs that seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a petitioner must prove the evidence: “(1) was not known to the defendant or defense counsel at the time of the trial; (2) could not have been discovered through due diligence before trial; (3) is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) would probably result in an acquittal or a more favorable result.” d 585, 590 (Minn. 2017) (citing Rainer v. State , ).
William Dumont White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.” d 585, 591 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted).
Dylan Matthew Deling v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We review a district court’s application of the Strickland test de novo because it involves a mixed question of law and fact.”
Andrew Will Alexander v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Scott Marlin Morey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Scott Arlen Lange v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lawrence Silas Kostohryz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If a claim fails to s atisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.” State v. Mosley , (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Levell Washington Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jose Juan Garcia Rivera Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonablen ess, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Mosley , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Stephen Schuety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Bila Shaka Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Grant Lloyd Greenwood v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jose Raul Herrera-Torres Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.” ; (applying Strickland).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jerome Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Junting He Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. James Obonyo Onuko Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.”
Vollie Andre Brown, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Bandur Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Where the claim does not satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, “we need not consider the other requirement.” (citation omitted).
Joseph Harvey Bellanger v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.” d 585, 591 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted).
Christopher London Walker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts review a postconviction court’s application of the Strickland test “de novo because it involves a mixed question of law and fact.”
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Anthony Janish Minn. Ct. App. 2019
that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors .” State v. Mosley , (q uotation omitted).
Brittany Ann Vacko v. State of Minnesota (A18-2038), Eric Joseph Vacko, vs. State of Minnesota (A18-2039) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Antone Larron Owens v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts review a postconviction cour t’s application of the Strickland test “de novo because it involves a 5 mixed question of law and fact.”