Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Boitnott v. State, 631 N.W.2d 362.

41 citing documents.

Abdiel Josadac Aguilar-Pineda, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
On review of an ineffective-assistance claim, “[t]here is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. J. C. L., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of: E. J. C. L., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2025
And “[w]e will generally not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.” Andersen, d at 10; (“[W]e have stated that the level of investigation and whether to object are matters of trial strategy that the court will generally not review.”).
Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Karl Alfredo Rosillo, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (noting that appellate courts “generally will not review” any “matters of trial strateg y”).
Ronald Lee Schlangen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Luis Esteban Pliego Cortes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Luis Esteban Pliego Cortes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But on review, “[t]here is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Dean Uldrych Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But on review, “[t]here is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Matthew Quiceno Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On review, “[t]here is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gerard McNeal, and Gerard McNeal v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Andersen v. State 830 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2013
Hughes v. State 815 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Hughes v. State 815 N.W.2d 602 Minn. 2012
Hughes argues that we did not judge his pro se claims on the merits when he raised them on direct appeal and that those claims are not procedurally barred.
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
Schleicher v. State 718 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2006
Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
Carney v. State 692 N.W.2d 888 Minn. 2005
There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable, and we give particular deference to trial strategy.
Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Whitten v. State 690 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“Despite the Knaffla bar that attaches to [appellant’s] ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, we have at times opted to review an appellant’s claims on the merits in the interests of justice.” -70 (Minn.2001).
Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
Zenanko v. State 688 N.W.2d 861 Minn. 2004
To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Zenanko must show that his counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” ( Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct.
Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
State v. Ornelas 675 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2004
State v. Ornelas 675 N.W.2d 74 Minn. 2004
However, “we have at times opted to review an appellant’s claims on the merits in the interests of justice.” -70 (Minn.2001); see also Minn. R.Crim.
Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003
Ives v. State 655 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2003
State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Johnson 653 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
King v. State 649 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2002
Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002
Boitnott v. State 640 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2002