Cited by

denial of postconviction relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellate courts “consider the [district] 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 20 the court’s decision or conclude that the court abused its discretion.”

a claim of relief based on 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).

In support of his argument, d 493 (Minn. 2013).

on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, appellate courts “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).

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Nicks

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

However, “[b]ecause claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, we review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”

d 585, 592 (Minn. 2017); see also State v. Nicks , (“We give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client.”).

“The scope of our review of factual matters is to determine whether there is sufficient support in the record to sustain the postconviction court’ s findings.”

“[T]he extent of any investigation is a part of trial strategy and, thus, should not be readily second-guessed.”

However, “[b]ecause claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, we review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”

In other words, an appellate court may reverse a district court’s sentencing order if it “is against logic and the facts in the record .”

In her direct appeal, Baldwin asserted that she was 2 Under Strickland, a defendant must prove 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.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687- 96 (1984)).

And “[b]ecause claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate courts] review the [district] court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”

“Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”

was attempting to peacefully leave the trailer after violently breaking a window while attempting to punch J.R.” 17 conclusions on such questions de novo.” (footnote omitted).

Appellate courts “consider the [postconviction] court’s factual findings that are supported in the record,” and we “conduct a de novo review of the legal implication of those facts on the ineffective assistance claim.” -04 (Minn. 2013).

“Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”

Because trial counsel enjoys “wide latitude” in making strategic decisions, this court will not review trial counsel’s “strategic choices made after [a] thorough investigation of law and facts.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690.

“The scope of our review of factual 7 matters is limited to determine whether there is sufficient support in the record to sustain the postconviction court’s findings.”

“Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are mixed questions of law and fact, [appellate courts] review the postconviction court’s legal conclusions on such questions de novo.”

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).

A 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.” (describing standard in relation to postconviction proceedings).

A 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.” (quotation omitted).

d 493, 506 (Minn. 2013) (stating that courts “give trial counsel wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client”).