Cited by

Pearson v. State , (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 692, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2067 (1984)).

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

10 In addition, if a claim “could have been raised in a previous postconviction petition, the Knaffla rule bars consideration of the claim in a subsequent petition for postconvictio n relief.”

An appellate court evaluating a postconv iction court’s decision examines whether the postconviction court “has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of th e law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

Pearson v. State , d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017).

d 590, 597 (Minn. 2017).

” Pearson v. State , (quotation omitted).

When determining whether a defendant was prej udiced by counsel’s performance, “we consider the totality of the evidence before the jury.” (citation 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).

5 Generally, we review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a petition for postconviction relief, or a probation- revocation decision, State v. Austin , -50 (Minn. 1980).

While appellate courts apply a clear-error standard in reviewing the postconviction court’s findings of fact, “the postcon viction court’s analysis of the two Strickland requirements is subject to de novo revi ew because the performance and prejudice components of the ineffectiven ess inquiry [involve] mixed qu estions of law and fact.” (quotation omitted).

The postconviction court determined that “because the plain language of the state and federal statutes differ to this extent regarding mens rea” it was “unwilling to extend the Rehaif holding to the case at hand.” D E C I S I O N This court “review[s] the denial of a p etition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” Pearson v. State

Pearson v. State (Pearson II)

Pearson v. State , (emphasis omitted) ().

While we generally review the denial of a postconviction petition for an abuse of discretion, Pearson v. State , we review the court’s findi ng that Walford validly waived counsel for clear error.

Put differentl y, we do not reverse the district court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (citation, quotations, and alterations omitted).

“We 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 capriciou s manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

A party may present a proper “claim of ineffective assistance of p ostconviction counsel that is based on counsel’s alleged failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim” by “first establish[ing] that trial counsel was ineffective.” d 590, 600 (Minn. 2017).

[It does] not reverse the postconviction court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

“We review the denial of a petition for postconviction relief for an abuse of discretion.” d 590, 596 (Minn. 2017).

“A pos tconviction 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.” (quotations omitted).

See Pearson v. State , (stating that if one prong under Strickland is not satisfied, reviewing court need not analyze other prong).

there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984) (first articulating the two-prong test).

Although we need not decide whether Lafler announced a new interpretation of constitutional law, we observe that in Pearson v. State , , 598 (Minn. 2017), we held that the Supreme Court's decision in Lafler did not satisfy the "novel legal basis" exception to the Knaffla rule.

“But if such a claim could have been raised in a previous postconviction petition, the Knaffla rule bars consideration of the claim in a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” Pearson v. State

Pearson v. State , , 597 (Minn. 2017).