Cited by

In addition, the decision whether to file pretrial motions relates to trial strategy, and tactical decisions about whether to file such motions “do not prove that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,”

n.2 (Minn. 2015) (refusing to strike a pro se appellant’s amended brief because, among other reasons, the respondent filed a response to the amended brief).

(noting that the decision to call exculpatory witnesses falls within trial strategy and is not reviewable on appeal) ; (stating that strategic trial decisions include “what evidence to present to the jury, what witnesses to call, and whether to object” to the state’s evidence) (quotation omitted); (“Trial strategy includes decisions about what evidence to present t

To show prosecutorial misconduct for offering false testimony, the facts alleged must show , for example, that the State “deliberately offered perjured testimony or violated the rules of discovery.” Carridine v. State

See, d 488, 493 (Minn. 2015) (stating that “the claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel could have been raised on direct appeal because the claims are based on the trial record” ).

Because Xiong’s criticisms of trial counsel’s performance were “known to” Xiong “at the time of his direct appeal,” we conclude the claims “are barred by [Knaffla].” See Andersen , d at 10; (determining appellant’s ineffective -assistance-of-trial-counsel claim was procedurally barred and “could have been raised on direct appeal because the claims are based on the trial record”).

Trial strategy includes determining what witnesses to call at trial, and selecting what evidence to present to the ju ry, Sanchez-Diaz v. State

(stating that what evidence to present to jury and whether to call witnesses to testify are part of counsel’s trial strategy, which lie within counsel’s discretion and are not generally reviewable for competence).

Carridine v. State , (reviewing a postconviciton court’s witness credibility determinations on a clearly erroneous basis).

9 (declining to consider counsel’s alleged failure to file a motion to suppress evidence and concl uding the postconviction court did not abuse its discreti on in denying the claim without an evidentiary hearing).

See, e.g. , Carridine v. State , , 493 (Minn. 2015).

See Carridine v. State , (there is a “ general rule that appellate courts do not review an attorney' s trial strategy for competence”).

Zornes v. State , , 416 (Minn. 2017) (quoting Carridine v. State , , 492 (Minn. 2015) ).

(holding that purported failures to 12 investigate or call additi onal witnesses were not ineffective assistance of counsel when petitioner failed to show “anything other than cumulative and non-material evidence would have been admitted”).

“We review the summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”

Carridine v. State , (quotation omitted) .

See Carridine v. State , (decisions whether to subpoena a witness and file a motion are matters of trial strategy); (“[T]he extent of any investigation is a part of trial strategy.”); (“Decisions

See Carridine v. State , (“[A]ppellate courts do not review an attorney’s trial strategy for competence.”).

Put differently, “[w]e do not reverse the postconviction court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.”

“[Appellate courts] review the summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.”