Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dukes v. State, 660 N.W.2d 804.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Although an appellate court can never condone a n attorney admitting a defendant’ s guilt without his consent or acquiescence, it “must be cautious in defining an ‘implied admission’ to not allow the semantics of every questioned word, statement or misstatement of counsel by inadvertence, negligence or p erhaps cleverness to be an automatic ground for a new trial.” Dukes v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Although defense counsel may not impliedly admit the defendant’s guilt without his permission, in order to review a claim of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s concession of guilt, this court examines the trial record.
A16-0684 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[E]ven implied concessions require client consent.”
State of Minnesota v. Lamar James Crump Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lamar James Crump Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that court’s “judge the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of the conduct”).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Harvey Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Harvey Bellanger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In evaluating an ineffectiveness-of- counsel claim the court must “judge the reasonableness of counsel’s challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the time of counsel’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven White v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[E]ven implied concessions require client consent.”
State v. Turnage 729 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 2007
Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Pederson v. State 692 N.W.2d 452 Minn. 2005
Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
Torres v. State 688 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2004
We have recognized that we must exercise great caution when defining an implied concession lest the “semantics of every questioned word, statement or misstatement of counsel by inadvertence, negligence or perhaps cleverness * * * [become] an automatic ground for a new trial.”
Carpenter v. State 674 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 2004
Carpenter v. State 674 N.W.2d 184 Minn. 2004