Cited by

Relying on Crawford, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “[a] successful Confrontation Clause claim has three prer equisites: the statem ent in question was testimonial, the statement was admitted for the truth of the matte r asserted, and the defendant was unable to cross-examine the declarant.”

Under the Strickland test, Fry must show that “(1) his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” Id.

(“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” (quotation omitted)).8 The postconviction court found Wheeler’s testimony during the plea hearing merited credence.

Minnesota courts will “gener ally not review an ineffe ctive-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.”

(“When a claim of 1 In one of his postconviction petitions, Thomas asserts that he should be allowed to retroactively accept the pretrial plea offe r, arguing that he only rejected it due to advice from counsel, which he now claims was ineffective.

Andersen v. State (Andersen II )

at 751-52; -12 (Minn. 2013) (stating that the detailed colloquy showed appellant “plainly entered a valid waiver of his right to testify on the record”).

“Under the Strickland test, [a criminal defendant] must demonstrate that (1) his [or her] counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.”

“When a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal or it is Knaffla-barred.” Andersen v. State

Waiver of Right to Testify A defendant’s right to testify in his own defense is “protected by the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution and Minnesota law.” Andersen v. State

(citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 59 & n.9, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1369 & n.9 (2004)).

“When a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal or it is Knaffla-barred.” Andersen v. State

A reviewing court “considers the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury in making a determination of prejudice.”

Andersen v. State , (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)).

A reviewing court “considers the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury in making a determination of prejudice.” Andersen v. State

(quotations and citations omitted).

Andersen v. State , State v. Bobo

Admission of an out -of-court statement violates the Confrontation Clause when “ the statement in question was testimonial, the statement was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and the defendant was unable to cross -examine the declarant.” (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 & n.9, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1369 & n.9 (2004) ).

Andersen v. State , (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004)).

P. 60.02 ); Rossberg v. State , , 791 (Minn. 2016) (postconviction relief); Andersen v. State , , 12 (Minn. 2013) (obtaining an evidentiary hearing in criminal matters after waiving the right to testify); Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., , 783 (Minn. 2004) (summary judgment); In re Rahr Malting Co. , , 576 (Minn. 2001) (whether something is a trade secret); In re Welfare of L.L.P.

“A successful Confrontation Clause claim has three prerequisites: the statement in question was testimonial, the statement was admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and the defendant was unable to cross-examine the declarant.” (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 59 & n.9, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1369 & n.9 (2004)).

Ellis-Strong, d at 535 ().

ng that all of the claimed instances of ineffective assistance were matters of trial strategy, none of which “indicate[d] representation below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id.; see also Mosley, d at 592 (stating that “decisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy, which [an appel late court] will not review ” (quotation omitted)); Andersen v. State , (defining “trial strategy” to include investigation and selection of evidence).

Ellis-Strong, d at 535 ().

“A defendant’s right to testify is protected by the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution and Minnesota law.”

Andersen v. State , 12 (Minn. 2013).

We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, State v. Andersen ( Andersen I ), , 323 (Minn. 2010), and affirmed the postconviction court's summary denial of his first postconviction petition, Andersen v. State ( Andersen II ), , 14 (Minn. 2013).

Appellate courts “will generally not review an ineffective-assistance- of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.” Andersen v. State

But “[w]e will generally not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counse l claim that is based on trial strategy.”

Andersen v. State , , 9 (Minn. 2013) (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 , 68, 124 S.Ct.

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

See Andersen v. State , , 11 (Minn. 2013) (discussing how "[s]olemn declarations in open court," such as affirming the voluntariness of a plea during the plea colloquy, "carry a strong presumption of verity" (quoting Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63 , 74, 97 S.Ct.

“The extent of trial counsel’s investigation is considered part of trial strategy .” Andersen v. State