Cited by

(explaining the distinction).

It has recognized that this practice “can make it more difficult to determine whether a court exercised its own careful consideration of the evidence, of the witnesses, and of the entire case.” (quotation omitted).

But “[e]ven if counsel admits guilt without the defendant’s permission, no error will be found if the defendant acquiesced in the strategy.”

An attorney provides reasonable assistance when exercising “the customary 9 skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

An attorney provides reasonable assistance when they exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

conduct a careful and searching review of the record.”

(explaining that the supreme court has “recognized that claims that require a court to 10 explore conversations between attorney and client are best handled on a petition for postconviction relief”).

- 55 (Minn. 2001) (stating that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that require 20 additional factfinding—such as “claims that require a court to explore conversations between attorney and client”—should be raised in a petition for postconviction relief).

12, 1993); -59 (Minn. 2001).

rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

An attorney provides reasonable assistance when they exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

“In considering whether the jury might have reached a different verdict, [appellate courts] do not analyze the impact of the recantation, but rather ‘the effect that the absence of the false testimony would have had on the result in the original trial.’” Reed , d at 19 ().

11 diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

18 own careful consideration of the evidence, of the witnesses, and of the entire case.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See, (reversing conviction where defense counsel conceded defendant’s guilt during closing arguments); Dukes v. State , (remanding to the postconviction court for further proceedings to determine whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel conceded guilt during closing argument); State v. Wiplinger , (reversing where defense counsel implied that

We review a district court’s verbatim adoption of one party’s proposed findings by conducting “a careful and searching review of the record.” Dukes v. State

A showing of prejudice is not required because “[t]he decision to admit guilt is the defendant’s decision to make.”

In situations when counsel admits guilt without the consent of the defendant, the defendant is entitled to a new trial, regardless of whether he would have been convicted without the admission.” (citation omitted).

Generally, “[o]nce a party takes a direct appeal, any claim raised in that appeal will not be considered in a petition for postconviction relief.” (citing State v. Knaffla , (M inn.

4 We note that “claims that require a court to explore conversations between attorney and client are best handled on a petition for postconviction relief.” d 246, 255 (Minn. 2001); (“The preferred procedure is to raise the issue of ineffective assistance in a petition for postconviction relief in the district court.”); see also Minn. R. Crim.

See Opsahl, d at 422; (“[W] e have also indicated that Larrison applies more generally, such as ‘ when a court reviews an allegation that fals e testimony was given at trial.’ ” ( )).

(“The decision to admit guilt is the defendant’s decision to make.

see McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 1511 (2018) (violation of a defendant’s constitutionally protected autonomy right is structural error “not subject to harmless-error review”); (“Admitting a client ’s guilt 7 without the client’s consent

2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ; see also Dukes v. State , , 252 (Minn. 2001).

Dukes v. State , , 258 (Minn. 2001).

Dukes v. State , , 252 (Minn. 2001) (citing Strickland , 466 U.S. at 686 , 104 S.Ct.

Dukes v. State , , 251 (Minn. 2001) (citation omitted).

We have explained that “[t]he decision to admit guilt is the defendant’s decision to make.”

to argue that Knaffla does not apply to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel “if the claim could not be decided on the transcripts and briefs.” Neither case supports appellant’s position.