Cited by

Furthermore, we have long rejected ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims where counsel fails to file a motion because “these actions are trial strategy decisions.”

On the first Strickland prong, Ashley has failed to establish error in the district court’s determination that trial counsel ’s performance did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” (quotation omitted); see also Peltier, d at 372.

As previously stated, this court will not review claims challenging trial strategy, and trial strategy includes the selection of evidence presented to the jury, “which witnesses to call at trial,” and counsel’s advice to her client.

(stating that decisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy).

N.W.2d 1, 13 (Minn. 2013) (noting that the decision to call exculpatory witnesses falls within trial strategy and is not reviewable on appeal) ; (stating that strategic trial decisions include “what evidence to present to the jury, what witnesses to call, and whether to object” to the state’s evidence) (quotation omitted); (“Trial strategy includes decisions about what evidence to present to the jury.”).

State v. White (White I ), –04 (Minn. 2004); White v. State (White II), –09 (Minn. 2006).

d 106, 110 (Minn. 2006) (noting that jury instructions are matters of trial st rategy and an attorney’s failure to object to a jury instruction is therefore not reviewable).

See, (rejecting White’s claim that conviction statute was unconstitutional as Knaffla-barred); Henderson v. State , (same).

See, (rejecting claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Schwartz hearing where defendant failed to provide eviden ce to support assertion that juror was unable to be impartial); State v. Miller , (rejecting claim that trial counsel was ineffect

There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: “(1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.”

1 (2016) ; see State v. Knaffla , 309 Minn. 246 , , 741 (1976) (barring postconviction review of all claims raised "and all claims known but not raised," on direct appeal); see also White v. State , , 109 (Minn. 2006) (barring all postconviction claims that were known "or should have been known" at the time of direct appeal).

“There are two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.” White v. State

to argue that Knaffla does not apply to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “if the claim could not be decided on the transcripts and briefs.” Neither case supports appellant’s position.

“The second exception may be applied if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (quotation omitted).

Under the Knaffla rule, “Once a direct appeal has been taken, all claims that were 5 raised in the direct appeal and all claims that were known or should have been known but were not raised will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.”

There are two exceptions to this Knaffla rule: “(1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review.”

The Knaffla rule provides that “[o]nce a direct appeal has been taken, all claims that were raised in the direct appeal and all claims that were known or should have been known but were not raised will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.”

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 ( ).

The postconviction 2 The Knaffla rule provides that “[o]nce a direct appeal has been taken, all claims that were raised in the direct appeal and all claims that were known or should have been known but were not raised will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” (citing Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252, d at 741).

It is well-established that “[o]nce a direct appeal has been taken, all claims that were raised in the direct appeal and all claims that were known or should have been known but were not raised will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” (citing State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, ); see also Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd.

at 232-33 (determining that petitioner’s claims were Knaffla-barred where the direct appeal had proceeded to conclusion and the petitioner raised issues in his postconviction petition that were raised or should have been raised on direct appeal); (same); (same); (stating the rule as “[w]hen a direct appeal has been taken and litigated .

“A claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel that can be decided on the basis of the trial court record must be brought on direct appeal and is procedurally barred when raised in a [subsequent] postconviction petition.” (quotation omitted).

(concluding that “[p]ostconviction review of claims other than ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and ‘new evidence’ is barred because these claims are based on evidence in the trial record, and therefore these 11 claims were known or should have been known to Wright at the time of his direct appeal”); (“All of these claims can be decided on the basis of the district court record and are therefore Knaffla-barred on this postconviction review.”).

“The second exception may be applied if fairness requires it and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (quotation omitted).

“Decisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy.” Leake, d at 542 ().