DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558.

298 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Robert James Fallin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    To prevail on this claim, Fallin must establish that (1) “his 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.”’ (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).
  • John Christian Richmond v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • John Christian Richmond v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    To show ineffective assistance of counsel, a “defendant must affirmatively prove that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).
  • Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (quotations and citation omitted).
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C.L.T. and J.T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: C.L.T. and J.T., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)); (applying the Strickland standard in juvenile-court proceedings).
  • State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails because no “reasonable probability” exists that, “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984) (establishing a two-step analysis that requires a showing of prejudice); (noting that if an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails on the prejudice prong, this court need not review the performan
  • State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    “The defendant must affirmatively prove that his 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 17 different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    In order to succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “[t]he defendant must affirmatively prove that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).
  • State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Larry Leo Geleneau, Jr. 873 N.W.2d 373 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner “must affirmatively prove [1] that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ and [2] ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael Devon Jarmon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Michael Devon Jarmon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    In order to succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “[t]he defendant must affirmatively prove that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).
  • Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quoting and citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Jose Manuel Ortiz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984); Gates v. 5 State, (adopting Strickland test).
  • Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    ail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “[t]he 7 defendant must affirmatively prove that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Otis Ray Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 6 2068 (1984); (adopting Strickland standard).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Jyron Mendale Young Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    vail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Young “must affirmatively prove [1] that his 11 counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ and [2] ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Bradley D. Fordyce Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Bradley D. Fordyce Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    To show ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant “must affirmatively prove that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Eulogio Hernandez-Espinoza Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Hernandez-Espinoza “must affirmatively prove [1] that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ and [2] ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).
  • State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
  • Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
  • Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Nissalke 801 N.W.2d 82 Minn. 2011
    Under the second prong, “the defendant must show that counsel’s errors ‘actually’ had an adverse effect in that but for the errors the result of the proceeding probably would have been different.” (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693-94 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. DALBEC 781 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. DALBEC 781 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the accused must show that “his 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.’ ” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
    To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant “must affirmatively prove that his 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.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Martin 773 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2009
    To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant “must affirmatively prove that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.