green
Positive treatment
Issue: Strickland testMN ↗
Issue: ineffective assistance of counsel claimMN ↗
42.3 score
G Cite
cited 7× by 7 distinct cases, 2015–2017 ·
…we review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.
at p. 782
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Angel Ignacio Sardina-Padilla
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Larsen
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782-83 (Minn. 2013) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Renard Rucker
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Edward Antonio Zappa
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 786 (Minn. 2013). 7 The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution provides a criminal defendant with the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Seth Clayton Francis Crawford v. State of Minnesota
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charles Kwadzo Sokpa-Anku v. State of Minnesota
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Walker
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013). 18 First, Walker contends that his counsel provided ineffective assistance when they failed to obtain bus and light rail videos.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 786 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Virginia Marie Carlson
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wayne Deante Akis v. State of Minnesota
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Charles Bonga
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandon Darnell Barnes v. State of Minnesota
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel “We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Bruce Cournoyer
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson
This court dissolved the stay and reinstated Johnson’s appeal. 5 DECISION I. “[Appellate courts] review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Triell Hall
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Larry Dean Mensing v. State of Minnesota
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Dewayne Hines
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Terry Lynn Olson v. State of Minnesota
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013). “[C]ounsel is under a duty to raise only meritorious claims” and “does not act unreasonably by not asserting claims that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail.” Wright v. State, 765 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Minn. 2009); Case v. State, 364 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. 1985) (stating that “counsel has no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious issues”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Manuel Flores v. State of Minnesota
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mario Ferbo Mancini v. State of Minnesota
“We review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Brittny Nicole Ziegler
The Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless [the witness] was *554 unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53-54 , 124 S.Ct. at 1365 . ‘Whether the admission of evidence violates a criminal defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 786 (Minn.2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Juan Jasso, Jr.
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Lamon Caradine
In order to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that “(1) his trial attorneys’ performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his attorneys’ errors, 6 the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Frederick Schmidt v. State of Minnesota
To prevail under Strickland, “an appellant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” 2 When the district court grants an evidentiary hearing, “[w]e review the denial of postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo because such a claim involves a mixed question of law and fact.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Jason Paul Krieg
“The existence of premeditation is generally inferred from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the crime.” Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Minnesota v. Enamidem Celestine Okon
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Minn. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Nicks
Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783-85 (Minn.2013) (concluding that the record supported the factual finding on premeditation that the postconviction court made in the course of analyzing the second prong of Strickland test); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (explaining that state court findings of fact made in the course of deciding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review). 12 We therefore are required to “afford great deference to a [postconviction] court’s findings o…
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Minnesota v. Marvel Galvaston Williams
See Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783 (Minn. 2013) (noting that a reviewing court need not address both parts of the Strickland test if one is determinative).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Minnesota v. Warren Fred Nelson
State v. Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d 340, 357 (Minn. 2012); see also Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783 (Minn. 2013) (stating that appellate court need not address both parts of Strickland test if one is determinative).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show “(1) that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’; and (2) ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Nissalke v. State, 861 N.W.2d 88, 94 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)); see also Hawes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 775, 783 (Minn. 2013) (stating that a reviewing court need not address both pa…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Petition for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Patti Jo JENSEN, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 171347
No. A12-2087.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Feb 25, 2013.
Alan.
Published
ORDER
By order filed on January 10, 2013, we suspended respondent Patti Jo Jensen from the practice of law for a minimum of 30 days, effective 14 days from the date of the filing of the order. Respondent has filed an affidavit seeking reinstatement in which she stated that she has fully complied with the terms of the suspension order, except for successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination. The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility does not oppose the request.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent Patti Jo Jensen is conditionally reinstated to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota, effective February 25, 2013, subject to her successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination; and
2. By January 10, 2014, respondent shall comply with Rule 18(e)(3), Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), by filing with the Clerk of Appellate Courts and serving upon the Director proof of respondent’s successful completion of the professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination. Failure to do so shall result in automatic re-suspension pending proof of successful completion of the examination, pursuant to Rule 18(e)(3), RLPR.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_ Alan C. Page Associate Justice