Cited by

When an appellate court reviews a postconviction court’s denial of relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it considers only “the court’s factual findings that are supported in the record.” -04 (Minn. 2013).

In reviewing a district court’s summary denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 590.04, “we have an obligation to extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

8 “[T]o receive an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant is required to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the two-prong test announced in [Strickland].” (quotation omitted).

A postconviction court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

“A postconviction court, 11 however, need not hold an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief.” d 511, 516 (Minn. 2012); (“If the postconviction court concludes there are no material facts in dispute that preclude dismissal, and the State is entitled to dismissal of the petition as a matter of law, the court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” (quotation omitted)).

“Any doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the defendant seeking relief.”

“[W]e review a denial of a petition for postconviction relief, including a denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”

To prove prejudice resulting from an attorney’s deficient performance, Davis must show that there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

The postconviction court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

(postconviction petition); (evidentiary rulings).

“Any doubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the defendant seeking relief.”

A postconviction court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

The postconviction court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

“[I]f material facts are in dispute which have not been resolved in the proceedings resulting in conviction and which must be resolved in order to determine the issues raised on the merits, the court must schedule an evidentiary hearing.” (quotation omitted).

B. Prong two of the Strickland test To prove prejudice resulting from an attorney’s deficient performance, Roberts must show that there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

Appellate courts “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”

are supported in the record, conduct[s] a de novo review of the legal implication of those facts on the ineffective assistance claim, and either affirm[s] the court’s decision or conclude[s] that the court abused its discretion because postconviction relief is warranted.” -04 (Minn. 2013).

(“We give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”).

The district court abuses its discretion when “its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.”

10 his ineffective -assistance-of-counsel claim, Duncan must establish (1) “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness ”; and (2) “there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)).

An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim requires Letourneau to show that : (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness ”; and (2) “there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Nicks , ( citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96 (1984)).

“If the postconviction court concludes there are no material facts in dispute that preclude dismissal, and the state is entitled to dismissal of the petition as a matter of law, the court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.” (quotation omitted); (“When a petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief, the postconviction court need not hold an evidentiary hearing.

relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we “will consider the court’s factual findings that are supported in the record, conduct a de novo review of the legal implication of those facts on the ineffective assistance claim, and either affirm the court’s decision or conclude that the court abused its discretion because postconviction relief is warranted.” -04 (Minn. 2013).

We ordinarily “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.” .