DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wilson v. State, 582 N.W.2d 882.

24 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    A strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance was within “the wide range of reasonable professional assistance .” Wilson v. State , (quotation omitted) .
  • Thomas John Rassmussen, Jr., petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “There is a strong presumption that a counsel’s performance falls within the wid e range of reasonable professional assistance.” (quotation omitted).
  • Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
  • Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
    Appellate counsel has no duty to raise all possible issues on appeal, and may choose to argue “only the most meritorious claims.” (explaining that an appellate counsel has “no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious issues”) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
  • Wright v. State 765 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 2009
    (stating standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claim).
  • Sanchez-Diaz v. State 758 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2008
  • Sanchez-Diaz v. State 758 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2008
    Specifically, he failed to allege facts that, if proved, would “affirmatively show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that without the errors the result would have been different.”
  • El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
  • El-Shabazz v. State 754 N.W.2d 370 Minn. 2008
    (stating that a petitioner is entitled to a hearing to develop the facts supporting his ineffective assistance claims only if he alleged facts that would “affirmatively show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that but for the errors, the result w
  • Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
  • Vance v. State 752 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 2008
    A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop the facts supporting his ineffective assistance claims only if he alleges facts in the petition that, if proved, would “affirmatively show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that but for the errors, the result would have been different.”
  • Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007
  • Hathaway v. State 741 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2007
    G.Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must “show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that but for the errors, the result would have been different.”
  • Greer v. State 673 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2004
  • Greer v. State 673 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 2004
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
  • Boitnott v. State 631 N.W.2d 362 Minn. 2001
  • Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
  • Hummel v. State 617 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Riendeau 603 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Riendeau 603 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    (holding that ineffective assistance claims known at the time of direct appeal are generally barred unless an evidentiary hearing is required to develop additional facts).
  • Townsend v. State 582 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1998
  • Townsend v. State 582 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1998
    Therefore, Townsend is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim only if he alleged facts which would “affirmatively show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and but for the errors, the result would have been different.”