Cited by

assess the evidence that a proper investigation would have discovered and determine whether that evidence likely would have changed the outcome of the trial.” (quotation omitted).

Reed v. State , (citing Williams v. State , (“[A]ppellate counsel is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail.”) and Case v. State , 364 N .W.2d 797, 800 (Minn. 1985) (“[Appellate c ounsel] has no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious iss

“When determining whether alleged failure to investigate constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, we consider whether the decision was based on trial strategy or whether it demonstrated that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard o f reasonableness.”

15 assistance of counsel, we consider whether the decision was based on trial strategy or whether it demonstrated that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Williams v. State

An appellate attorney “is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail.”

3 “[A]ppellate counsel is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail.”

Brooks argues that his “[a]ppellate counsel’s failure to raise the glaring ineffectiveness of trial counsel demonstrates ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” Appellate counsel “is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that appellate counsel legitimately concluded would not prevail.”

Brooks argues that his “[a]ppellate counsel’s failure to raise the glaring ineffectiveness of trial counsel demonstrates ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” Appellate counsel “is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that appellate counsel legitimately concluded would not prevail.”

-30 (Minn. 2009) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).

– 30 (Minn. 2009) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).

(explaining that “appellate counsel is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail”); (stating that “counsel has no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritori

More recently, the supreme court rejected an argument that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking to remove a juror, 15 reasoning that “ineffectiveness is not established by complaining that counsel failed to challenge certain jurors unless the failure to challeng

539 n. 10 (Minn.2012) (noting that decisions about which witnesses to interview are typically matters of trial strategy that we will not review); (noting that whether to cross-examine the State’s expert witness constitutes trial strategy); Bobo, d at 138-39 ; (“When determining whether alleged failure to investigate constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel, we consider whether the decision was based on trial strategy or whether it demonstrated that counsel’s performance fell below an object

-30 (Minn.2009) *783 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct.

“[A]ppellate counsel is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail.”

-30 (Minn.2009) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct.

(“[A]ppel-late counsel is not required to raise claims on direct appeal that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail.”); (“[C]ounsel has no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious issues.”).

(stating that we will not review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims based on trial strategy unless they implicate a fundamental right).