facts concerning why defense (Minnesota) · Go Syfert
← Minnesota issues

facts concerning why defense in Minnesota

10 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Zernechelgreen
minn · 1981 · cited in 7 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1983–1995
2 sentences

1995Generally, a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction is not the most appropriate way to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the reviewing court does not "have the benefit of all the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things.” State v. Zernechel, 304 N.W.2d 365, 367 (Minn.1981).

1983As we indicated in State v. Zernechel, 304 N.W.2d 365, 367 (Minn.1981), “Generally, an appeal from a judgment of conviction, such as this, is not the most appropriate way of raising an issue concerning the effectiveness of the trial counsel’s representation because we do not have the benefit of all the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things.” As in Zernechel , defendant nonetheless contends that the record on this appeal mandates the conclusion that his trial counsel failed to represent him effectively.

77
State v. Hansongreen
minnctapp · 1985 · cited in 4 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1985–1987
2 sentences

1987This approach would have provided this court with “the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things.” State v. Hanson, 366 N.W.2d 377, 379 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).

1987The purpose of such hearings is to give the reviewing court “the benefit of all the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things.” Id.

34
State v. Cermakgreen
minn · 1984 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1985–1986
2 sentences

1986See, e.g., State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328 , 332 n. 5 (Minn.1984); State v. Zernechel, 304 N.W.2d 365, 367 (Minn.1981).

1985See, e.g., State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328 , 332 n. 5 (Minn.1984); State v. Zernechel, 304 N.W.2d 365, 367 (Minn.1981).

22
Gates v. Stategreen
minn · 1987 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
1 sentence

1987Before 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.’ ” Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Minn.1987) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Roby v. State green
minn · 1995
1 sentence

2014“Generally, a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction is not the most appropriate way to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the reviewing court does not have the benefit of all the facts concerning why defense counsel did or did not do certain things.” Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482 , 484 n.1 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).

12014–2014
McKenzie v. State green
minn · 2008
1 sentence

2014“The best procedure for raising such a claim . . . is to file a petition for postconviction relief before appeal.” McKenzie v. State, 754 N.W.2d 366 , 369 n.3 (Minn. 2008) (quotations omitted).

12014–2014
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

1987Before 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.’ ” Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Minn.1987) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

1987Before 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.’ ” Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558, 561 (Minn.1987) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

11987–1987

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check