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.

  • Dunn v. State 499 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1993
    (“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.”).
  • State v. Lee 494 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Bock 490 N.W.2d 116 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    ce of counsel: 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 different.” “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to determine confidence in the outcome.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Scruggs v. State 484 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1992
  • Scruggs v. State 484 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1992
  • Gustafson v. State 477 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1991
  • Gustafson v. State 477 N.W.2d 709 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Smith 476 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Smith 476 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1991
    2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
  • Fox v. State 474 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1991
  • Fox v. State 474 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1991
    2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); -62 (Minn.1987) (applying the Strickland test).
  • Harris v. State 470 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Harris v. State 470 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Smith 464 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Smith 464 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
  • State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Bliss 457 N.W.2d 385 Minn. 1990
  • Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
  • Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
  • Fratzke v. State 450 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1990
  • Fratzke v. State 450 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1990
    Thus, petitioner had to 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.’ ” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Saliterman v. State 443 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Saliterman v. State 443 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    In order to obtain relief on the ground of inadequate representation, Saliterman must 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.
  • Hathaway v. State 434 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1989
  • Hathaway v. State 434 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1989
    : These cases set forth a two-part test that postconviction courts and appellate courts must apply in determining whether to grant a defendant a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.
  • State v. Redding 422 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Redding 422 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1988
    2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)
  • State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    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 different.” A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.
  • Ramon v. State 416 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Ramon v. State 416 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show not only that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” but also 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.
  • Lande v. State 406 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Lande v. State 406 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    two-part test in determining whether to grant a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel: 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 different.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hood 405 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hood 405 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Gettel 404 N.W.2d 902 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Before an appellant will be granted a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must affirmatively prove that the 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.
  • State v. Franson 403 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Franson 403 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    * * A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ (Minn. Jan.
  • Lukens v. State 400 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Lukens v. State 400 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    That test requires that a defendant 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. Grover 402 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Grover 402 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Irwin v. State 400 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Irwin v. State 400 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)