Cited by

will not be reviewed later by an appellate court as long as the trial strategy was reasonable.”

that whether to cross-examine the state’s expert witness and failure to call alibi witnesses were matters of trial strategy that could not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel); (noting that whether to cross -examine witness was a matter of trial strategy that could not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ); (noting that failure to investigate and failure to call a witness were matters of trial strategy and could not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel); Hodgson v. Stat

will not be reviewed later by an appellate court as long as the trial strategy was reasonable.”

“[M]atters of trial strategy, including which witnesses to call, what defenses to raise at trial, and specifically how to proceed at trial, will not be reviewed later by [a court] as long as the trial strategy was reasonable.”

“[M]atters of trial strategy, including which witnesses to call, what defenses to raise at trial, and specifically how to proceed at trial, will not be reviewed later by [a court] as lon g as the trial strategy was reasonable.”

Ives v. State , ; see also Opsahl v. State

A reviewing court generally “will not review attacks on counsel’s trial strategy.” (stating that matters of trial strategy “will not be reviewed later by an appellate court as long as the trial strategy was reasonable”).

A reviewing court generally “will not review attacks on counsel ’s trial strategy.” ; see also Ives v. State , (stating that matters of trial strat egy “ will not be reviewed later by an appellate court as long as the trial strategy was reasonable ”).

“[M]atters of trial strategy, including which witnesses to call, what defenses to raise at trial, and specifically how to proceed at trial, will not be reviewed later by an appellate court as long as the trial strategy was reasonable.”

4 The second Strickland requirement is that a defendant must establish “a reasonable probability that absent his appellate counsel’s error, the outcome of his direct appeal would have been different.” ().

“On appeal from a summary denial of postconviction relief, we examine whether sufficient evidence exists to support the postconviction court’s findings and will reverse those findings only upon proof that the postconviction court abused its discretion.”

(requiring that prejudice be shown to succeed in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel).

I. On review from a summary denial of a petition for postconviction relief, “ ‘we examine whether sufficient evidence exists to support the district court’s findings’ ” and will only reverse upon “ ‘proof that the postconviction court abused its discretion.’ ” ().

Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252 , d at 741 .

“On appeal from a summary denial of postconvietion relief, we examine whether sufficient evidence exists to support the postconvietion court’s findings and will reverse those findings only upon proof that the postconvietion court abused its discretion.”

(citing Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252 , d at 741 ) (“Knaffla rule”).

“On appeal from a summary denial of postconviction relief, we examine whether sufficient evidence exists to support the postconviction court’s findings and will reverse those findings only upon proof that the postconviction court abused its *561 discretion.”