Cited by

We may address the “prongs in either order and may dispose of a claim on one without analyzing the other.”

We may address the “prongs in either order and may dispose of a claim on one without analyzing the other.”

This prong does not involve a “sufficiency of the evidence inquiry,” although it includes a consideration of whether other evidence was “overwhelming.”

The first two prongs are “compulsory.”

Under the first Strickland prong, appellate counsel’s performance is objectively reasonable if they exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” -45 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

The first two prongs are “compulsory.” Martin v. 6 State

We review the postconviction court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo

(1) the court is “ reasonably well-satisfied” that a material witness’s testimony was “false,” (2) the jury “might” have reached a different conclusion without the false testimony, and (3) the petitioner “was taken by surprise when the false testimony 6 was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after trial.” Gilbert, d at 770 ().

rison test are: (1) the district court “is reasonably well-satisfied that the testimony given [at trial] by a material witness was false”; (2) “without the testimony, the jury might have reached a different conclusion”; and (3) the de fendant “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 trial.”

See Martin v. State , (re jecting the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation where appellant did not contest postconviction court’s finding that appellant fully participated in his trial).

If there are material facts in dispute and “the allegations in the petition, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief, then the court must schedule an evidentiary hearing.”

Instead, he [is] simply required to present competent material evidence that, if found to be true following an evidentiary hearing, could satisfy the Larrison test.”

If there are material facts in dispute and “the allegations in the petition, if true, would entitle t he petitioner to relief, then the court must schedule an evidentiary hearing.”

If there are material facts in dispute and “the allegatio ns in the petition, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief, then the court must schedule an evidentiary hearing.”

But if the postconviction court finds that “material facts are in dispute and that the allegations in the petition, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief, then the court must schedule an evidentiary hearing.”

Martin v. State , , 740 (Minn. 2013) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see Minn. Stat. § 590.04 , subd.

See Caldwell , d at 770-76 (concluding *509 that a signed and notarized affidavit from an investigator who interviewed the recanting witnesses was sufficiently trustworthy and an evidentiary hearing was required); Martin v. State , , 743 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing because the witnesses offered explanations for the recantations and submitted affidavits that formally recanted their sworn testimony); Dobbins v. State , , 734-35 (Minn. 2010) (concluding th

5 the [trial] testimony given by [O.W.], a material witness, was false” and “[O.W.’s] recantation did not have sufficient indicia of trustworthiness because the video documenting the recantation involved intimidation, and the testimony of the two witnesses who observed the recantation was not credible.” See Martin v. State , -41 (Minn. 2013) (stating that “a court cannot be reasonably certain the recantation is genuine unless i t contains sufficient indicia of trustworthiness” (quotation omitted

“But we review a postconviction court’s legal conclusions de novo.”

However, an appellant “cannot recharacterize a claim previously litigated to avoid the Knaffla procedural bar.” –46 (Minn. 2013) (disallowing appellant’s attempt to restate “an evidentiary issue in terms of ineffective assistance of trial counsel”) (citation omitted).