Cited by

Opsahl v. State , , 421 (Minn. 2004).

y,” and because she did not “accompany[] him during the [presentence investigation] (PSI) process.” As to Henderson’s assert ion that trial counsel unreasonably failed to object to certain testimony and therefore failed to present “the only reasonable argument that [could have] prevailed,” a reviewing court generally “will not review atta cks on counsel’s trial strategy,” Opsahl v. State

A reviewing court “generally will not review attacks on counsel’s trial strategy.” Opsahl v. 12 State

Nicks, d at 506; (“We have repeatedly stated that we generally will not review attacks on counsel’s trial strategy.”).

(concluding that appellant c hallenged his counsel’s strategy and the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing).

Opsahl v. State , , 424 (Minn. 2004).

“[W]e generally will not review attacks on counsel’s trial strategy.”

must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits.” d 414, 423 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted) (Opsahl I).

d 414, 421 (Minn. 2004).

Trial counsel’s performance is judged using an objective standard of “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

ppellate courts have rejected ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims based on the failure to hire a private investigator, failing to interview prospective witnesses, Id.; failing to call prospective witnesses, Scruggs v. State , and failing to purs ue a theory of an a lternative perpetrator, Opsahl v. State

The “objective standard is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” Opsahl v. State , (quotation omitted).

S. Ct. 2052, 2065 (1984); – 21 (Minn. 2004).

See, e.g., Caldwell, d at 771; –34 (Minn. 2010); 424 (Minn. 2004 ); Ferguson v. State, 6

sel’s failure to hire an investigator and interview witnesses, stating that “trial tactics should not be reviewed by an appellate court, which, unlike the counse l, has the benefit of hindsight ”); State v. Davis , n. 10 (Minn. 2012) ( stating “decisions about which witnesses to interview are typically matters of trial strategy that we will not review”); (holding that it was “in no position to 9 second-guess counsel’s decision to focus his strategy on other defenses instead of investigating [oth

Ives v. State , ; see also Opsahl v. State

(-23 (Minn. 2004)); see also Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 717-18 (7th Cir. 2004) (modifying the Larrison standard).

(d 414, 422-23 (Minn. 2004)); see also Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87-88 (7th Cir. 1928), overruled by United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 71 7-18 (7th Cir. 2004) (modifying the Larrison standard).

A reviewing court generally “will not review attacks on counsel’s trial strategy.” (stating that matters of trial strategy “will not be reviewed later by an appellate court as long as the trial strategy was reasonable”).

A reviewing court generally “will not review attacks on counsel ’s trial strategy.” ; see also Ives v. State , (stating that matters of trial strat egy “ will not be reviewed later by an appellate court as long as the trial strategy was reasonable ”).

This “require[s] the petitioner to allege facts that, if proven, would entitle him to the requested relief.” Opsahl v. State

Courts “will not review attacks on counsel’s trial strategy.” d 414, 421 (Minn. 2004).

(“We are in no position to second-guess counsel’s decision to focus his strategy on other defenses instead of investigating other suspects.”); (considering the extent of counsel’s investigation as trial strategy).

It is well established that trial strategy includes the “the extent of counsel’s investigation and the selection of evidence presented to the jury.” Vang, d at 267 ( ).

decisions by counsel, however, are matters of trial strategy, which this court is generally reluctant to review for ineffective assistance because of the public policy concern of “allowing counsel to have the flexibility to represent a client to the fullest extent possible.” 11 (quotation omitted).

(stating that “[t]he extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy”).

“Generally, we will not review ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on trial strategy.” ().

d 414, 421 (Minn. 2004) (stating that “[t]he extent of counsel’s investigation is considered a part of trial strategy,” which is generally not reviewable).