Legal Opinion
Carney v. State
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided March 10, 2005No. A04-513PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice.
Appellant Mark Carney appeals from a summary denial of his petition for postcon-viction relief alleging, inter alia, that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his lawyer did not adequately investigate his mental health, history and failed to present medical evidence at trial that may have supported Carney’s heat of passion defense and mitigated the element of premeditation. The postconviction court summarily denied Carney’s petition on the ground that his claims were procedurally barred under State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State v. KnafflaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Dukes v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- Opsahl v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- State v. RhodesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Mark John Carney v. Joan Fabian, Minnesota Commissioner of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
- Schleicher v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- White v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- Schneider v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Pippitt v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.