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 v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Bobo 770 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 2009
    *138 Under the first prong, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient, which means that counsel’s performance “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’ ” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
  • Leake v. State 767 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 2009
    2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
  • Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Carey’s first pro se argument requires proof that, first, “his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ ” and, second, “ ‘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.
  • Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
  • Williams v. State 764 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2009
    “ ‘A court must [also] assess the evidence that a proper investigation would have discovered and determine whether that evidence likely would have changed the outcome of the trial.’ ” (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct.
  • Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • Jama v. State 756 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
  • Pippitt v. State 737 N.W.2d 221 Minn. 2007
    In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Pippitt 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 * * * error[ ], the result of the [trial] *230 would have been different.’ ” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Edwards 736 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Edwards 736 N.W.2d 334 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    ANALYSIS I. Generally, a party alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must affirmatively show that his “counsel’s representa *338 tion ‘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. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Meldrum 724 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    These arguments lack merit because in order to succeed, appellant must affirmatively prove 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, 688 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Wright 719 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 2006
    To set aside a conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant 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. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Wembley 712 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • In Re the Welfare of C.J.W.J. 699 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    ANALYSIS I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that his attorney’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.
  • State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Plantin 682 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    endant 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)] ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Opsahl v. State 677 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2004
  • In Re the Welfare of B.R.C. 675 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • In Re the Welfare of B.R.C. 675 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must affirmatively show that his counsel’s representation “ ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ ” and 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.
  • Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
  • Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
  • Patterson v. State 670 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 2003
  • Patterson v. State 670 N.W.2d 439 Minn. 2003
    (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Noske v. Friedberg 656 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • Noske v. Friedberg 656 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (holding that where defendant could not show the evidence was suppressible, there was no prejudice from attorney’s failure to move to suppress and therefore no ineffective assistance of counsel).
  • State v. Xiong 638 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Xiong 638 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    stance of counsel a claimant 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.” “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
  • Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
    (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Anderson 603 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Anderson 603 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Sanderson v. State 601 N.W.2d 219 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999