Cited by

801(c), 802; n.6 (Minn. 2012).

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

need not hold an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief.”

(applying de novo review to district court’s legal determination to hold postconviction evidentiary hearing); d 57, 60-61 (Minn. 2025) (mem.)

“The [district] court is in a far better position than we are to evaluate the various factors bearing on the credibility of the witnesses, such as their demeanor, disposition, and character.” n.4 (Minn. 2012) (applying Albertson’s observation in a criminal case).

(stating that “there is a strong presumption that appellate counsel’s judgment about which issues to raise falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance” (quotation omitted)); (explaining that “appellate counsel is not ineffective

A district court may summarily deny a petition without holding an evidentiary hearing when “the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to grant the requested relief.” d 585, 602–03 (Minn. 2024)

But a district court “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).

“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.” (

But a district court “need not hold an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief.”

“To receive an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of [trial] 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.”

“To receive an evidentiary hearing on a timely postconviction claim of newly discovered evidence, [the petitioner] is required to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, ”

And “a postconviction court should not make witness credibility determinations without first holding an evidentiary hearing.” n.4 (Minn. 2012).

1 (2022); (discussing purpose of evidentiary hearing).

A n evidentiary hearing is not required “when the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief.”

The postconviction court “should not make witness credibility determinations without first holding an evidentiary hearing.” d 511, 517 n.4 (Minn. 2012).

See State v. Bobo (Bobo I ), Bobo v. State (Bobo II), Bobo v. State (Bobo III)

“To receive an eviden tiary hearing on a postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a de fendant is required to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderan ce of the evidence, would satisfy the two-prong test announced in Strickland v. Washington .” Bobo v. State , (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

2 (citing Rainer 2 As noted above, the district court concluded that Kingbird’s second postconviction petition was untimely, and Kingbird challenges that conclusion on appeal.

“The showing required 6 for an evidentiary hearing is l ower than that required for a new trial.”

“To receive an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction 4 claim of ineffective assistance of appellate 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 v. Washington .” Bobo v. State

And w e presume that 8 counsel’s “judgment about which issues to raise falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Bobo v. State , (quotation omitted).

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

“Any d oubts about whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be resolved in favor of the defendant.”

“An evidentiary hearing provides the postconviction court the means for evaluating the credibility of a witness.” (citing Wilson v. State , ).

Bobo v. State , , 517 (Minn. 2012).

“The showing required for an evidentiary hearing is lower than that required for a new trial.”

The supreme court has held that in order to receive an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective-assistance claim, the petitioner is “required to allege facts that , if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the two -prong test announced in Strickland.” Bobo v. State , .

To receive an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the petitioner “is required to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the two-prong test announced in Strickland v. Washington.”

1 (201 6); (stating an evidentiary hearing is not required “when the petitioner alleges facts that, if true, are legally insufficient to entitle him to the requested relief” ).

To receive an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the petitioner “is required to allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the two-prong test announced in Strickland v. Washington.”