Cited by

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

113 citing documents.

Richard Theodore Knoll, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6 Strickland requirements, [an appellate court] need not consider the other requirement.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randall Ferrell Decker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Alexander James Ray, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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).
, A21-0726 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, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Scott Marlin Morey, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Scott Arlen Lange, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Lawrence Silas Kostohryz, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Grant Lloyd Greenwood, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, petitioner, Appellant, 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors .” State v. Mosley , (q uotation omitted).
A18-2039 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Antone Larron Owens, petitioner, Appellant, 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.”
Rossberg v. State 932 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 2019
Rossberg v. State 932 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 2019
State v. Mosley , , 591 (Minn. 2017).
Johnathan Bernard Edwards, petitioner, Appellant, 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.”
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Matthew Alan Radke. Minn. Ct. App. 2019

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by