Cited by

“A postconviction court’s conclusion that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel involves a mixed question of law and fact that is reviewed de novo.”

“When different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings.”

(“[W]hen different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings.”).6 6 In 2013, the Legislature amended the statute governing conditional release for sex offenders by beginning the term only after the offender has been “released from prison.” Act

(stating that “[t]he interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law that we review de novo”).

“A reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quotations omitted).

4, proceeding in its findings of fact, but argues that because he “did not stipulate to the prosecution’s case, he is entitled to appeal the determination of 8 guilt.” “The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law that we review de novo.”1

We interpret rules of criminal procedure “in accordance with the rules of grammar and give words and phrases their common and approved usage.”

It is true that the credibility of a witness depends on her “demeanor, disposition, and character.” (quotation omitted).

Instead, appellant appears to have stipulated to a “body of evidence.” -21 (Minn. 2013) (distinguishing between trials on stipulated facts versus those on stipulated evidence).

(holding that “the submission of documentary evidence presenting contradictory versions of events” is a bench trial under Minn. R. Crim.

We interpret court rules in accordance with the rules of grammar and give words and phrases their common and approved usage.” d 714, 720 (Minn. 2013) (quotation and citation omitted), cert.

(“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims fail when counsel demonstrates reasonable strategic calculation throughout the representation and secures a favorable outcome for his client in the face of multiple felony charges and considerable evidence of guilt.”).

See, (“Generally, ‘when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings.’ ” ()).

See, d 433, 439 (Minn. 2014) (“Generally, ‘when different words are used in the same context, we assume that the words have different meanings.’ ” ()).

3.” d 714, 721 (Minn. 2013), cert.

(distinguishing between an agreement “regarding the actual event or circumstance” and an agreement regarding “the material to be submitted to the trial court”).

We conclude that his plea was not invalidated because the record clearly indicates that appellant and his attorney were aware that the pretrial issue, i.e. the constitutionality of the test-refusal statute, would be dispositive of his case.4 (holding that, although 4 n.3 (Minn. 2002), as here, “it appear[ed] that the parties and the court thought they were following the correct procedure for preserving appellate review of pretrial issues” by having the defendant file a guilty plea.

To prevail under Strickland, appellants “must demonstrate that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” (quotation omitted).