State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-0530

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jerrod Richard Lewis Ash,
Appellant.

Filed March 3, 2025
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Red Lake County District Court
File No. 63-CR-23-21

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lisa Lodin, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Tanner Holten, Red Lake County Attorney, Red Lake Falls, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jessica Merz Godes, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Harris, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Cochran,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Jerrod Ash broke into his girlfriend’s home after a night of drinking, pushed his way
into her bedroom where she and her daughter had taken shelter, and shoved her to the floor,
breaking her arm. A jury found Ash guilty of burglary, kidnapping, assault, threats of
2
violence, and domestic assault. He now challenges his consequent convictions, arguing on
appeal that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed
to object when the prosecutor offered evidence of his prior convictions to impeach his
testimony. We affirm because Ash’s counsel’s decision not to object is a matter of
unreviewable trial strategy and because, even if this were not so, Ash’s assertion of
ineffective assistance of counsel fails on its merits.
FACTS
Ash and his girlfriend, whom we refer to as Jane to maintain her privacy, argued at
Jane’s home in February 2023, leading them to separate to re-evaluate their relationship.
Ash agreed not to stay at Jane’s house that night, and he left. But later that evening, as Ash
left a bar he began sending Jane a series of texts that announced, “I’m so f---ed up.” Jane
was concerned that he would return to her home, so after text exchanges in which Ash
exhibited his anger, she turned off her phone and locked her doors.
Ash arrived at Jane’s home just after 10:30 p.m. and started calling for her and
banging on her door so forcefully that she felt her walls tremble. Jane took her daughter
into a bedroom and tried to barricade the door with a dresser. Ash broke through the front
door and forced his way inside the bedroom. Jane tried to call for help, but Ash snatched
her phone from her hand. Jane began yelling for help. Ash pushed her onto a bed and
covered her mouth to muffle her screams, making it difficult for her to breathe. The melee
migrated outside the bedroom, where Jane urged Ash to leave. Ash shoved Jane, and she
fell backward. She landed on her arm, which began to swell. Ash eventually left, and Jane
went to the hospital. A physician told her she had a broken arm. Police arrested Ash the
3
next day, and the state charged him with seven criminal counts: burglary, kidnapping,
assault, threats of violence, felony domestic assault, domestic assault by strangulation, and
interference with a 9-1-1 call.
Ash testified in his own defense at his jury trial. Before he testified, the district court
informed him of his rights and warned him that the state could question him about his prior
convictions. The prosecutor confirmed that he intended “to ask about all the felony
convictions in the past ten years.” Ash’s attorney responded, “[W]e have no objections to
that.” Before the state questioned Ash about his convictions, the district court instructed
the jury not to use the convictions as improper character evidence. The prosecutor then
questioned Ash about eight of his prior convictions, four of which (two controlled-
substance convictions, a threats-of- violence conviction, and an escape-from- custody
conviction) the state used to impeach Ash’s trial testimony.
The district court’s final instructions again cautioned the jury not to use the prior
criminal convictions as improper character evidence. The prosecutor did not mention Ash’s
prior convictions in his closing. The jury found Ash guilty of burglary, kidnapping, assault,
threats of violence, and felony domestic assault. Ash appeals.
DECISION
Ash argues that his attorney’s failure to object to the admission of his prior
convictions violated his right to effective assistance of counsel. Criminal defendants have
a constitutional right to effective legal representation. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685–86 (1984). We review de novo whether a defendant
received effective assistance by counsel at trial. State v. Mouelle , 922 N.W.2d 706, 710,
4
715 (Minn. 2019). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Ash’s ineffective-
assistance claim fails for two independent reasons.
The first reason Ash’s ineffective-assistance claim fails is that his attorney’s
decision not to object was a matter of trial strategy, which is not reviewable on appeal. An
attorney’s trial strategy is generally unreviewable because public policy favors allowing
attorneys flexibility to represent a defendant as fully as possible. Opsahl v. State, 677
N.W.2d 414, 421 (Minn. 2004). Whether to object to impeachment evidence is typically a
matter of trial strategy. See State v. Mosley, 895 N.W.2d 585, 591–92 (Minn. 2017). Ash’s
attorney told the district court before Ash testified that he and Ash had considered the
possibility that, if Ash took the stand, the prosecutor would cross-examine him using his
prior felony convictions. This demonstrates both that the attorney considered the possibility
that Ash would be cross-examined using his convictions and that his decision not to object
was the product of his reasoned, strategic judgment. Because Ash’s attorney’s decision not
to object was part of unreviewable trial strategy, Ash’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel fails.
The second and independent reason the claim cannot prevail is that, even if his
attorney’s trial performance were reviewable, Ash has not shown that failing to object to
the conviction evidence affected the verdict. To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim,
an appellant must show both that his attorney’s performance was deficient and that the
deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. But the district
court acts within its discretion by admitting prior convictions to impeach a defendant’s trial
testimony, see Minnesota Rule of Evidence 609, and Ash does not convincingly argue that
5
the district court should have or would have excluded any of the impeachment evidence
had his attorney objected. And his misdemeanor domestic- assault conviction was
admissible to prove the prior-conviction element in Ash’s felony domestic-assault charge.
See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.2242, subd. 4, 609.02, subd. 16 (2022). Because the district court
would have likely overruled any objection to the evidence, Ash has not shown that, but for
his attorney’s alleged trial error, there is a reasonable possibility that the outcome would
have been different.
Affirmed.