Cited by

A district court abuses its discretion in denying a postconviction petition 5 when it has “exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

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

A district court abuses its discretion if it “exercise[s] its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, base[s] its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or [makes] clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

A postconviction court “abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion when it has “exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

Schaefer-Bonovsky asserts that trial counsel “knew he couldn’t counter” the victim’s trial testimony about the sexual touching and that counsel therefore lied when he told Schaefer-Bonovsky that “he had a good chance when counsel knew he had none.” “[A]n erroneous strategic prediction about the outcome of a trial is not necessarily deficient performance.”

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

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

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

The district court “abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Pearson v. State

Appellate courts “review a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Id.; (explaining that “[l]egal issues are reviewed de novo, but .

While we review a district court’s denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion, we review de novo the Strickland analysis because “the performance and prejudice components of the ineffectiveness inquiry [involve] mixed questions of law and fact.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted); (“We review a district court’s denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion, and we review any embedded issues of law de novo.”).

A district court abuses its discretion if it “exercise[s] its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, base[s] its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or [makes] clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

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

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” 596 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its rulings on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings .” (quotation and citation omitted).

based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law[.]” (quotation omitted).

“A [district] court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

“A 4 [district] court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

In doing so, we review legal issues de novo and limit our review of factual issues “to whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the [district] court’s findings.” Pearson v. State, 5 (quotation omitted).

d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” 6 (quotation omitted).

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

Under the Strickland test, a defendant must “show that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

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