Cited by

d 665, 671 (Minn. 2020) ().

“T he objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perfo rm under similar circumstances.” -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” State v. Vang , -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

(instructing that we “will not review an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy,” which includes deciding which defenses to raise and “the extent of counsel’s investigation and the selection of evidence”); (i

The supreme court has held that “[t ]he determination of which defenses to raise represents an attorney’s trial strategy.” d 248, 267 (Minn. 2014).

Chavez-Nelson, d at 671 (citing State v. Vang , ).

“The objective standard of reasonablen ess is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” State v. Vang , -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

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

“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

The objective standard of reasonableness is “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

(not analyzing first two prongs of plai n-error doctrine because the third prong was dispositive).

See, (“A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous if it is reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.”); (“[W]e review a postconviction court’s factual determinations under a clearly erroneous standard, and do not reverse those determinations unless they are not factually supported by the record.”); (holding that the district court’s pretrial finding

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

“An error is plain if it is clear or obvious; usually this means an error that violates or contradicts case law, a rule, or an applicable standard of conduct.”

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

“The objective standard of reasonableness 6 is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perf orm under similar circumstances.” –67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

d 248, 267 (Minn. 2014).

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064; -67 (Minn. 2014).

Appellate courts “[w]ill not review an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial strategy.”

State v. Vang , , 259 (Minn. 2014).

See State v. Vang , (“Consecutive sentencing of multiple felonies with multiple victims is permissive and within the broad discretion of the district court.” (quotation omitted)).

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

“The objective standard of reasonablenes s is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted) .

5 could have been prevented.

d 248, 264 (Minn. 2014).

“To prevail on a claim that his counsel was ineffective, appellant must demonstrate that (1) the attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for the attorney’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” d 248, 266 (Minn. 2014).

District courts have “broad discretion” in sentencing decisions, and this court affords “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and cannot substitute [its] judgment for that of the district court.” (quotation omitted ).

Appellate courts “need not analyze both prongs if either one is determinative.”

“Trial counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable.”

“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perfo rm under similar circumstances.” State v. Vang , -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

“Trial counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable.” State v. Vang

“The objective standard of reasonablene ss is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under simi lar circumstances.” State v. Vang , -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

“Generally, [appellate courts] will not review an ineffective -assistance-of-counsel claim that is based on trial strategy.” State v. Vang

See State v. Vang , , 266 (Minn. 2014).