Cited by

“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.” .

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).

On the other hand, “when counsel fails to conduct such a thorough investigation of facts that are so directly related to the defendant’s theory of the case, that conduct falls below an objective standard of professional conduct.” -08 (Minn. 2013) (reversing district court’s decision to deny postconviction relief after concluding appellant alleged facts sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing based on the claim that trial counsel failed to obtain evidence “central” to counsel’s theory and st

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this court “will 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 the court’s decision or conclude that the court abused its discretion because postconviction relief is warranted.” -04 (Minn. 2013).

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

5 is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

rial based on false testimony if (1) a court is “reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false,” 17 (2) without the testimony, the jury “might have reached a different conclusion,” and (3) the defendant “was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial.”

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).

We review the denial of a postconviction petition, “including a denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.”

When reviewing a district court’s denial of postconviction relief based on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, this court considers the district court’s factual findings that are supported in the record and reviews de novo the “legal implication of those facts.” -04 (Minn. 2013).

We review a postconviction court’s denial of ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claims by considering the factual findings supported by the record and by conducting “de novo review of the legal implication of those facts on the ineffective assistance claim.” -04 (Minn. 2013).

Mo reover, the fact that an attorney’s failing could be characterized as a “trial strategy” should not be an “impregnable barrier” to an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim; the Minnesota Supreme Court has specifically rejected “such a formalistic approach.”

State v. Nicks , (quotation omitted).

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

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).

are supported in the re cord, 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 pos tconviction relief is warranted.” -04 (Minn. 2013).

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).

“[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 [Strickland] test.” State v. Nicks , (quotation omitted).

Similarly, when considering an alleged failure to investigate, the extent of an attorney’s investigation constitutes trial strategy that “should not be readily second-guessed.”

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)

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).

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.” (quotation omitted).

In our review of a denial of postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, we “consider the court’s factual fi ndings that are supported in the record,” and “conduct a de novo review of the le gal implication of those facts.” State v. Nicks

Trahan, d at 221 -22; Stavish, d at 677

(stating that reversal is warranted when defendant shows there is a reasonable probability that “but for counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different”).

“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).

We afford defense counsel “wide latitude to determine the best strategy for the client,” , and will not second -guess counsel’s strategic decisions, Leake v. State