Tate v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Tate v. State

    No. A23-1623 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2024)

    4. In November 2017, Tate filed a second petition for postconviction relief with the assistance of new counsel, arguing that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim based on trial counsel's failure to object to the state's lack of proper notice of its intent to seek an upward sentencing departure under Minn. R. Crim. P. 7.03. Tate v. State, No. A18-0909, 2019 WL 1007771, at *2 (Minn.App. Mar. 4, 2019), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 2019). The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing.

  2. Tate v. State

    No. A20-0869 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    We agreed that Tate's trial claims are procedurally barred but concluded his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not similarly barred unless Tate knew of the basis for the claim at the time of his direct appeal. Tate v. State, No. A18-0909, 2019 WL 1007771, at *3-4 (Minn. App. Mar. 4, 2019), review denied (Minn. May 28, 2019). We also concluded that the district court abused its discretion by summarily rejecting Tate's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim on the merits.