Cited by

“[C]ounsel is under a duty to raise only meritorious claims” and “does not act unreasonably by not asserting claims that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail.” (stating that “counsel has no duty to include claims which would detract from other more meritorious issues”).

“The petitioner must overcome the presumption that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable representation.” (quotation omitted).

To qualify under this exception, “a claim must have merit and must be asserted without deliberate or inexcusable delay.”

(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 dir

See Malone v. Vasquez, 138 F.3d 711, 720 (8th Cir.1998); (stating that appellate counsel “does not act unreasonably by not asserting claims that counsel could have legitimately concluded would not prevail” (citation omitted)).

ewly discovered evidence, the defendant must show: “(1) that the evidence was not known to the defendant or his/her counsel at the time of the trial; (2) that the evidence could not have been discovered through due diligence; (3) that the evidence is not cumulative, impeaching, or doubtful; and (4) that the evidence would probably produce an acquittal or a more favorable result.” -94 (Minn.2009) ().

The second prong requires that the “claim must have merit and must be asserted without deliberate or inexcusable delay.”