Cited by

“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.”

“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).

10 an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the p roceeding would have been different.” Crow v. State

More recently, in Crow v. State , which involved a 22-y ear-old defendant, we sa id, “Because Crow was not a juvenile at the time of [the victim’s] murder, Miller’s rule regarding the unconstitutionality of life without the possibility of release senten ces for juveniles does not apply to him.” –11 (Minn. 2019).

“The United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel.”

We will not reverse the district court’s postconviction decision unless it “is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record, or [the district court] exercise[d] its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” d 2, 9 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

See Crow v. State , (requiring for a valid ineffectiveness-of-counsel claim that an attorney’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that the result would have been different without the attorney’s errors).

“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 United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel.” Crow v. State

“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 ar bitrary or capricious manner.” (quotation omitted).

A district court abuses its discretion if “its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” (quotation omitted).

“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.” (Mi nn.

“To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [an] 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 unpr ofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984).

I. Ineffective assistance of counsel: failure to object to hearsay “The United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel.”

“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).

“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.” (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted).

“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.” Crow v. State , (quotation omitted).