Cited by

State v. Vang , -67 (Minn. 2014).

See, e.g. , State v. Vang , , 266 (Minn. 2014) (the standard of reasonableness for purposes of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims is an objective standard); Doe v. Archdiocese of St.

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

See State v. Vang , (holding that 9 appellant failed to meet his burden of proving his substantial rights were affected when there was overwhelming evidence of guilt); see also State v. Ivy , review denied (Minn. Dec.

State v. Vang , , 258 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

This court reviews the district court’ s factual determinati ons under the clearly erroneous standard and will not reverse those determinations “unless they are not factually supported by the record.”

“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the custom ary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney woul d perform under similar circumstances.” State v. Vang , 6-67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

“The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as representation by an attorney exercising the custom ary skills and diligence 3 that a reasonably competent attorney woul d perform under similar circumstances.” State v. Vang , 6-67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations omitted).

11 “Plain error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if ‘there is a reasonable likelihood that the error[] had a significant effect on the jury’s verdict.’” ().

n.9 (Minn. 2014) (“[J]udicial restraint bids us to refrain from deciding any issue not essential to the disposition of the particular controversy before us.”).

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we engage in “a painstaking review of the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” State v. Vang , (quotation omitted).

n.9 (Minn. 2014) (declining to address an issue that was not dispositive of the case).

-68 (Minn. 2014) (concluding that if trial counsel advised Vang to reject the State’s plea offer and proceed to trial on a claim of self-defense, the recommendation was not objectively unreasonable when Vang presented evidence that he feared the victim, did not have an opportunity to retreat, and the jury was inst

& n.9 (Minn. 2014) (declining to resolve an issue that was not necessary to dispose of the case).

& n.9 (Minn. 2014) (declining to resolve an issue that was not necessary to dispose of the case).

265 n.9 (Minn. 2014) (refraining from deciding an issue that “is not necessary to the disposition of appellant’s case”).

“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).

First, the defendant must show that “the attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”

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

A guilty verdict will not be reversed “if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).

To meet the objective standard of reasonableness, an attorney must exercise the “customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would [exercise] under similar circumstances.” -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

A guilty verdict will not be reversed “if, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the [fact-finder] could reasonably have found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.” (quotation omitted).

265 n. 9 (Minn.2014) (same).

As authority, (“[A]ttempted first- degree felony murder (drive-by shooting), in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.17 (2012), 609.185(a)(3) .

“When assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, [we] make a [thorough] review of the record to determine 3 whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict.” (quotation omitted).

“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 perform under similar circumstances.” -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotations 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.”

To meet the objective standard of reasonableness, an attorney must exercise the “customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would [exercise] under similar circumstances.” -67 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

nstructions to Allen about how many times to shoot Brandon was direct evidence of “counsel[ing]” and “advis[ing].” Applying the traditional standard here, which requires us to “giv[e] due regard to the presumption of innocence and to the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could reasonably have found [Horst] guilty of the charged offense.”

“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) (internal quotations omitted) (noting that counsel’s performance is presumed to be reasonable).