Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Boates, 922 N.W.2d 706.
- Hennepin County State of Minnesota v. Johnny Leroy Brown Hudson, C.J. Minn. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Dandre Powell
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Moreover, “[w]e assess an attorney’s performance on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).
-
Scott Solon Schaefer-Bonovsky v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The first part of the Strickland test requires a showing that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness .” State v. Mouelle , (quotations omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman
Minn. 2026
14(3); –13 (Minn. 2019).
-
Andrew Vernard Glover v. State of Minnesota
Minn. 2026
In addition, Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.03, subdivision 14(3), provides that “[a] judge may not preside over any criminal proceeding if [they are] disqualified from doing so under the Code of Judicial Conduct.” 4 –13 (Minn. 2019).
-
Juan Pachuco Silva v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[A] district court judge’s adverse rulings, without more, are not enough for a criminal defendant to demonstrate that the judge was biased against him.”
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of: K. A. A., Child
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The Strickland test requires a showing that “counsel ’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotations omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Marie Paschal
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
5 “A judge may not preside over any criminal proceeding if she is disqualified from doing so under the Code of Judicial Conduct.” -13 (Minn. 2019).
-
State of Minnesota v. Tony Allen Gohl
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Mouelle , -13 (Minn. 2019); Malone, d at 464.
-
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.L.B., Child
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
That test requires a showing that (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotations omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jonathan Deloye
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[A] district court judge’s adverse rulings, without more, are not enough for a criminal defendant to demonstrate that the judge was biased against him.”
-
State of Minnesota v. Jerrod Richard Lewis Ash
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. Mouelle , 4 715 (Minn. 2019).
-
Berry Alexander Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Minn. 2025
“[A] district court judge’s adverse rulings, without more, are not enough for a criminal defendant to demonstrate that the judge was biased against him.”
-
State of Minnesota v. Jamal L. Smith
9 N.W.3d 543
Minn. 2024
“But a district court judge’s adverse rulings, without more, are not enough for a criminal defendant to demonstrate that the judge was biased against him.”
- State of Minnesota v. Jesse Wayne Blaylock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Sidney Phillip Monette
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
a jury instruction does not automatically require a new trial,” the supreme court has said that “a thorough examination of the record [must be conducted] to determine whether the omission of an element of a charged offense from the jury instruction was sufficiently prejudicial in light of the standard of review.” -29 (Minn. 2013); (citing Watkins and stating, “[a]n omission of an element of the crime charged is not always prejudicial”).
-
State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law and fact, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Doll
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Velt Murray
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota v. Cody Shawn Ash
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.” State v. Mouelle , .
- State of Minnesota v. Torisa Sulvoris Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
State of Minnesota v. Chad Edward Danberry
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Impartiality requires absence of ‘actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case.’” ().
-
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Denise Longoria
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.”
- State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
- Jordan Lee Wachter v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
A21-0480
Minn. 2023
(stating that whether the State presented overwhelming evidence to prove t he element is one factor we consider when assessing if an unobjected-to jury instruction that fails to state an element of a crime affects a defendant’s substantial rights).
- Richard Theodore Knoll v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
State of Minnesota,
Minn. 2023
“Impartiality requires absence of ‘actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of his particular case.’ ” (quoting Munt, d at 580).
-
State of Minnesota v. Joshua William Dwyer
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The benchmark for judging ineffectiveness is whether counsel’s conduct so undermined “the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” d 706, 715 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota v. David James Whitebird, Jr.
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If Whitebird establishes that the district court committed plain error affecting his substantial rights, we may correct the error “only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
- Alexander James Ray v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota v. Trever Joseph Palodichuk
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.” State v. Mouelle
-
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Konakowitz
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The “performance” prong of the Strickland test requires appellant to show that his trial counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” ( ).
-
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Lamond Jones
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Campbell
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Application of the Strickland test involves a mixed question of law and fact, which we review de novo.” (Mi nn.
- A19-1560 Minn. 2021
-
State of Minnesota v. Raymon Freeman
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
If Freeman establishes all three of the prongs, we will reverse only if the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or pu blic reputation of judicial proceedings.”
-
Elton James Curtis v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Application of the Strickland test involves mixed questions of law and fact that we review de novo.”
-
State of Minnesota v. Xavier Alfred Haywood
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And according to the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge must be disqualified from “‘any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” (quoting Minn. R. Jud.
- State of Minnesota v. Trejuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-
State of Minnesota v. Mark Andrew Huyber
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Whether a judge has violated the Code is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”
-
Robert Louis Freeman, III v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(explaining the two -part Strickland test for ineffective -assistance-of-counsel claims).
-
State of Minnesota,
Minn. 2020
To evaluate whether a “reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality,” we take the perspective of “an objective, unbiased layperson.” (quoting Jacobs, d at 753).
- State of Minnesota v. James Allen Buck Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota v. Wendy Kristine Abbott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
Antone Larron Owens v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The Sixth Amendment provides to criminal defendants the right to the assistance of counsel at trial,” including “the guarantee that counsel’s assistance be effective.” (quotation omitt ed).
-
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Justin Allen Newman
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under the first prong, appellant must show that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” which we assess “on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” (citation omitted).
-
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Daniel A. Wilson
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails when defendant cannot demonstrate “ that the alleged errors actually had an adverse effect on the outcome of the case ” (quotation omitted)).