Cited by

“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve mixed questions of law and fact, which we review de novo.”

(stating that a postconviction “petitioner has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence facts that would warrant relief”).

See Vance v. State , (“When a petitioner bases his ineffective -assistance-of - 14 II.

For this reason, “[t]he showing required for a petitioner to receive an evidentiary hearing is lower than that required to receive a new trial.” d 651, 659 (Minn. 2007); (“The burden of proof for a postconviction evidentiary hearing is lower than the burden for new trial.”).

Vance v. State , (holding that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were Knaffla barred because they were based on facts that the appellant kne w or should have known about at the time of his direct appeal).

L egal issues are reviewed de novo, but review of factual issues “is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.”

(quoting Vance v. State , ).

Matakis v. State , , 36 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Vance v. State , , 512 (Minn. 2008) ).

at 771 (concluding in part that a handwritten note lacked sufficient indicia of trustworthiness because it was unsworn, undated, did not state which parts of the testimony were false, and misspelled the name of the witness who was allegedly recanting); Vance v. State , , 514-15 (Minn. 2008) (concluding that the affidavits of two witnesses recanting their trial testimony lacked sufficient indicia of trustworthiness to merit an evidentiary hearing because the reasons given for falsely testifying w

See McKenzie, d at 369 –70 (holding that Knaffla barred claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on “ failure to object to testimony, the racial remarks during closing arguments, the witness statement [appellant] wished to rebut, and the ev idence presented by the defense”); Vance v. State , (holding allegations that appellant’s “ trial counsel failed to conduct an investigation, talk to any witnesses, and call any witnesses to testify are ” Knaffla barred); cf. Wright v. State , (holdin

Legal issues are reviewed de novo, but our review of factual issues “is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” ().

We review legal issues de novo but will review factual issues by considering “whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.”

We review legal issues de novo, but on factual issues our review “is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.” ().

“A postconviction court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing only when there are disputed material facts that must be resolved to determine the merits of the postconviction claims.” -13 (Minn. 2008).

-13 (Minn. 2008) (“A postconviction court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing only when there are disputed material facts that must be resolved to determine the merits of the postconviction claims.”).

We review legal issues de novo, but on factual issues our review “is limited to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.”

(“When a petitioner bases his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim, he first must show that trial counsel was ineffective.”).

State v. Ferguson (Ferguson I), Vance v. State (Vance II)

“Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve mixed questions of law and fact, which we review de novo.”

See Knaffla, 309 Minn, at 252, d at 741 ; (noting that ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims were Knaffla-barred because they were based on facts that the petitioner knew or should have known of at the time of his direct appeal).

But, the State contends that such a hearing was not needed in this ease because Green’s affidavit does not provide “sufficient indicia of trustworthiness” to warrant an evidentiary hearing.