Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Dent v. State, 441 N.W.2d 497.

33 citing documents.

Douglas Allan Treu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 497, 500 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Whether representation was objectively unreasonable requires a determination as to whether the representation was “reasonable in the light of all the circumstances.”
Thomas John Rassmussen, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Counsel appealing a criminal conviction has no duty to raise all possible issues.”
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
[and] has no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious issues.” d 497, 500 (Minn. 1989) (quotation omitted).
Chaun Dubae Carridine v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2015
Chaun Dubae Carridine v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 2015
We have said that “[c]ounsel appealing a criminal conviction has no duty to raise all possible issues.”
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
Dobbins v. State 788 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 2010
We have said that “[c]ounsel appealing a criminal conviction has no duty to raise all possible issues.”
Wayne v. State 601 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
Wayne v. State 601 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1999
See State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
State v. Brocks 587 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1998
It appears from the record that the strategies employed by Brocks’ counsel were “reasonable in light of all the circumstances.” (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct.
Wilson v. State 582 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1998
Townsend v. State 582 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1998
Townsend v. State 582 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1998
Wilson v. State 582 N.W.2d 882 Minn. 1998
Gibson v. State 569 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Gibson v. State 569 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
When reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the standard we employ is “whether the representation and the assistance were reasonable in the light of all the circumstances.”
King v. State 562 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1997
King v. State 562 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 1997
In determining whether the counsel’s representation fell below the standard, we must first decide if the representation was “reasonable in light of all the circumstances.” (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct.
Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
Miller v. State 531 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1995
Miller v. State 531 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 1995
Furthermore, “[w]here direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , ).
Crisler v. State 520 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Crisler v. State 520 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
ANALYSIS I. The supreme court has held that “where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252 , see also, (under Knaffla , postconviction claims that were previously raised need not be considered).
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
State v. DeWald 463 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1990
The standard applied by this court in claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is “whether the representation and the assistance were reasonable in light of all the circumstances.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct.
Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
Marhoun v. State 451 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 1990
this court affirmed a post-conviction court’s decision not to reach a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the appellant “failed to raise any claims of deprivation of constitutional rights which were not available to him at the time of his direct appeal.” Id.
Fratzke v. State 450 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1990
Fratzke v. State 450 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1990