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. Voorhees 596 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Ronquist 600 N.W.2d 444 Minn. 1999
    -62 (Minn.1987) (adopting the standard from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Brown 597 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    A defendant who seeks a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel 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.
  • State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Doppler 590 N.W.2d 627 Minn. 1999
    2052 ; (quoting Strickland).
  • Zenanko v. State 587 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1998
  • Zenanko v. State 587 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1998
    On the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must affirmatively demonstrate 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. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Lahue 585 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 1998
  • Sullivan v. State 585 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1998
  • Sullivan v. State 585 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1998
  • Boitnott v. State 582 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1998
  • Boitnott v. State 582 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1998
    cifically on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, we have said that, to be entitled to relief, a defendant must affirmatively demonstrate 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.
  • State v. Ronquist 578 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Ronquist 578 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    First, Ronquist must prove that his representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Powell 578 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Powell 578 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 1998
    2062 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) because he failed to prove that Clemons’ representation fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness” and failed to show that but for Clemons’ deficient performance the result of the proceeding would have been different.
  • Berkow v. State 573 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Berkow v. State 573 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    ive Assistance of Counsel Minnesota has adopted the federal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, which requires a defendant to prove (1) that 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, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Tsipouras v. State 567 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Tsipouras v. State 567 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    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.
  • Hale v. State 566 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1997
  • Hale v. State 566 N.W.2d 923 Minn. 1997
  • Powell v. State 562 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Powell v. State 562 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    To be entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must first affirmatively prove that his counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    See Fratzke, d at 102 (authorizing evidentiary hearing only when accused’s allegations, if proven, would establish actual prejudice); (rejecting ineffective assistance claim where petitioner failed to establish adequate trial preparation would have produced favorable witness whose testimony would have changed outcome of trial); (stating failure to investigate does not constitute in
  • State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Walen 563 N.W.2d 742 Minn. 1997
    (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Hennepin County v. Perry 561 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1997
  • Hennepin County v. Perry 561 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1997
    562 n. 1 (Minn.1987) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Berg v. State 557 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Berg v. State 557 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    2052, 2064, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (establishing the test for proving ineffective assistance of counsel); -62 (Minn.1987) (applying the Strickland test).
  • Roby v. State 547 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1996
  • Roby v. State 547 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1996
    titioner alleges constitutionally inadequate performance by an appellate attorney, the petitioner must allege facts which would: 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.’ (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Kelly 535 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Kelly 535 N.W.2d 345 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Ecker 524 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Ecker 524 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    In order to obtain relief on the basis of ineffective counsel, appellant bears the burden of proving that the public defender’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that a “reasonable probability” exists that “but for counsel’s professional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
  • Crisler v. State 520 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • Crisler v. State 520 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    A defendant claiming ineffective assistance must show both 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.”
  • State v. Lonergan 505 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Lonergan 505 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Ferguson 501 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Ferguson 501 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1993
    2052, 2065-68 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
  • Dunn v. State 499 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1993