Cited by

As discussed above, there are two exceptions to the Knaffla- procedural bar: (1) the claim “is so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time of the direct appeal,” or (2) “hearing the claim is in the interest of justice because fairness so requires and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” -10 (Minn. 2019) (quotations omitted).

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that [the] claims merit relief.”

A petitioner seeking postconviction relief “bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”

“The United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel.” see also U.S. Const. amend.

A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record,” or when the court “exercises its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”

To succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a party must show “that (1) his trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

See id.; (quotation omitted) (stating that an evidentiary hearing is not required when a petitioner’s claim rests “solely on conclusory, argumentative assertions without factual support”).

Courts may consider a claim if (1) the claim “is so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time of the direct appeal,” or (2) “hearing the claim is in the interest of justice because fairness so requires and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” -10 (Minn. 2019) (quotations omitted).

There are two exceptions to this rule for an unraised claim: when “an issue is ‘so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time of the direct appeal’ ” or when “a court decides that hearing the claim is ‘in the interest of justice.’ ” –10 (Minn. 2019) ().

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.” d 2, 10 (Minn. 2019).

But the court may deny an evidentiary hearing when a petitioner’s claims rest “solely on conclusory, argumentative assertions without factual support.” (quotation omitted).

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”

VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”

VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6

That constitutional right includes “the right to effective assistance of counsel.” (emphasis added).

See, -10 (Minn. 2019) (explaining that there are two exceptions the Knaffla procedural bar: the novel-legal-issue exception and the interests-of-justice exception).

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”

The appellant must “show both that (1) his trial counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel ’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Jones, d at 193 ( ).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record, or exercises its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” (quotation omitted).

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”

“A [district] court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record or exercises its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” d 2, 9 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.” d 2, 10 (Minn. 2019).

State’s ballistics expert.7 7 Jones also makes a generalized allegation that his trial counsel “was inexperienced and ill -prepared” and “not familiar with basic courtroom procedure.” We reject these arguments without analysis because we do not entertain “ineffective assistance claims when based solely on conclusory, argumentative assertions without factual support.” Crow v. State , (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.” d 2, 10 (Minn. 2019).

(stating that postconviction evidentiary hearing not required whe n claims “are based solely on conclusory, argumentative assertions without factual support ” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

“A postconvic tion court abuses its discretion when its 4 decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record, or exercises its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” (quotation omitted).

Crow v. State, 1 The district court determined that count II was a lesser-included offense of count I. 5

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit re lief.” d 2, 10 (Minn. 2019).

“The person seeking postconviction relief bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that his claims merit relief.”