Cited by

(“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.”).

“We will generally not review an ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.”

(“We will generally not review an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.”).

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

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

Appellate courts “review a postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo,” but “will not reverse the court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”

To demonstrate an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant 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 12 counsel’s errors.”

When reviewing an ineffective assistance claim, we strongly presume that counsel’s performance was reasonable, and we need not address both prongs of the test if one is determinative

“We will generally not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.”

To prevail, Olson 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.” see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984).

Counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable, and the burden of providing the appellate court with a record to establish any alleged errors in counsel’s performance is the claimant’s. State v. Carlson, 281 Minn. 564, 566, -49 (claimant had not “provided any factual support

Under the Strickland test, the petitioner must demonstrate 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.”

(stating “[w]e will generally not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy” and that “[t]he extent of trial counsel’s investigation is considered part of trial strategy”).

In light of the “strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable,” d 1, 10 (Minn. 2013), this record does not show that the adversarial process was undermined by any lack of pretrial investigation and preparation, –45 (Minn. 2003) (reasoning that “[l]egal representation is an art, not a science,” and concluding that “counsel’s conduct falls squa

(explaining that appellate courts do not review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that are based on trial strategy).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, an appellant 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.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)).

To prevail on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, Hamilton must show “(1) [that] 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.” see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984).

Andersen v. 9 State, Bobo, d at 138