Cited by

about which witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions of trial strategy that lie within the discretion of trial counsel.” Leake, d at 539; (noting that the decision to call exculpatory witnesses falls within trial strategy and is not generally reviewable on appeal); -27 (Minn. 1992) (finding no merit in the claim that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to call three potential defense witnesses).

(“We review the district court’s denial of postconviction relief, including a denial of relief without an evidentiary hearing, for an abuse of discretion.); (reviewing a district court’s denial of postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion).

See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (stating that even if a defendant’s claim succeeds on the first prong, no relief is warranted unless counsel’s ineffective representation resulted in prejudice to the defendant); see, (applying the Strickland test to determine whether to grant a defendant a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel).

In Waiters, that where the record does not disclose the reasons for the district court’s summary denial of postconviction relief, and the appellate courts cannot otherwise ascertain whether the district court actually considered the relevant claims, reversal and remand may be appropriate.

6 This court will not second guess the trial-strategy decision of which 6 See, (noting that decision to call exculpatory witnesses falls within trial strategy and is not reviewable on appeal); -27 (Minn. 1992) (determining that trial counsel’s failure to call three potential witnesses was within counsel’s trial strategy).

sses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions of trial strategy that lie within the discretion of trial counsel.” see also Andersen, d at 10 (stating that trial strategy includes decisions about the extent of trial counsel’s investigation and what evidence is presented to the jury); -27 (Minn. 1992) (finding no merit in the claim that a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to call three potential defense witnesses).

(“The postconviction court makes findings and conclusions to facilitate appellate review.” (emphasis added)).

n.1 (Minn.1992) (holding when defendant’s appellate brief does not raise issues previously stated in a petition for postconviction relief, those issues are considered waived); see also McKenzie v. State, 4 representation “fell below the objective standard of reasonableness,” prejudiced his defense, and theref

(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694).

-25 (Minn. 1992) (permitting this court to review a postconviction decision in the absence of legal conclusions if the record is clear).

See Scruggs v. State , n.1 (Minn. 1992) (concluding that issues not briefed were “waived”).

the issues in question were properly raised in the petition for review, the defendant forfeited appellate review of the issues when he failed to brief or argue the issues in our court); see also Staunton v. State , , 296 n.8 (Minn. 2010) (same); Barnes v. State , , 363 n.2 (Minn. 2009) (same); State v. Hurd , , 32 (Minn. 2009) (same); Scruggs v. State , , 24 n.1 (Minn. 1992) (same).

at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068

Appellate courts have rejected ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims based on the failure to hire a private investigator, failing to interview prospective witnesses, Id.; failing to call prospective witnesses, Scruggs v. State , and failing to purs ue a theory of an a lternative perpetrator, Opsahl v. State

See Scruggs v. State , , 24 n.1 (Minn. 1992) (concluding that a postconviction appellant forfeited appellate review of three of four claims raised in the postconviction petition by not addressing those claims in his brief).

n.1 (Minn. 1992) (stating that a claim not addressed in appellant’s brief is forfeited).

“First, the defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below ‘an objective standard of reasonableness.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S. Ct. at 2064).

n.1 (Minn. 1992) (noting that because an appellate brief did not address certain issues raised in a petition for postconviction relief, those issues were waived on appeal).

Second, the defendant must prove that there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” d 21, 25 (Minn. 1992) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068).

n.1 (Minn. 1992) (holding that arguments raised in postconviction petitions but not addressed on appeal will not be considered).

5, 1997) (“Where a defendant asserts error, but fails to address the error in his appellate brief, the issue is deemed waived.”); n.1 (Minn. 1992) (“Appellant’s brief does not address the first three claims, so these claims are deemed waived.”).

2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).”

see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. *486 52, 57-59 , 106 S.Ct.

6 (concluding that issues not argued in briefs must be deemed waived on appeal); , 24 n. 1 (Minn.1992) (“Appellant’s brief does not address the first three claims, so these claims are deemed waived.”).

(concluding that a claim in the postconviction petition that was not briefed by either party was waived); , 24 n. 1 (Minn.1992).