Cited by

“Generally, an [ineffective-assistan ce-of-counsel] claim shou ld be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rath er than on direct appeal.” State v. Gustafson

3.” “A defense counsel’s performance is deficient if it falls below an objective standard of reasonableness.” (Mi nn.

mplicates the general rule that “a n ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal” on the ground that “a postconviction hearing provides the court with ‘additional facts to explain the attorney’s decisions,’ so as to properly consider whether a defense counsel’s performance was deficient.” (quo ting Black v. State , n.1 (Minn. 1997)).

See State v. Gustafson , (concluding that the record was insu fficient for proper appellate review of appellant’s pro se arguments).

“Generally, an [ineffective-assistance-o f-counsel] claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rath er than on direct appeal.” State v. Gustafson

See State v. Gustafson , (preserving appella nt’s right to pursue ineffectiv e-assistance-of-counsel claim in postconviction proceedings).

(preserving appellant’s right to pursue ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in postconviction proceedings where record was insufficient).

State v. Gustafson , 321 (Minn. 2000); State v. Ellis-Strong

(“A postconviction hearing provide s the court with additional facts to explain the attorney’s decisions so as to p roperly consider whether a defense counsel’s performance was deficient.” (quotation omitted)).

“Generall y, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.” State v. Gustafson

d 314, 318–19 (Minn. 2000).

d 314, 320 (Minn. 2000) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct.

See S tate v. Gustafson , (referring to postconviction proceedings).

For Comeaux to succeed on a plain-error analysis, there must be “(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error m ust affect substantial rights.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Gustafson , (While it is true that district courts have the respo nsibility to ensure all es sential instructions are given, that responsibility does not require the court to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on affirmative defenses when they are not requested, raised, or argued).

“Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.”

“Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.”

See, n.1 (Minn. 1995) (explaining that direct appeal from a judgment of conviction is not the most appropriate way to raise an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim because the appellate court consequently lacks the facts of why counsel did or did not do

“Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.”

“Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel 12 claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.”

20 “Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.”

“Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.”

.”); (“Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.”).

But Nelson does not specify how his “defense counsel’s performance was deficient” or how “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”

n.4 (Minn. 2007) (“[W]here a district court fails to give a required accomplice corroboration instruction and the defendant does not object, an appellate court must apply the plain error analysis.”); (rejecting view that district court, sua sponte, should have instructed on self-defense where defendant failed to request the instruction, failed to object to the failure to give the instruction, and did not argue self-defense at trial).

“Generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be raised in a postconviction petition for relief, rather than on direct appeal.”

While an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim should typically be raised by a postconviction petition for relief, we believe that, given the state of the record here, we may address it on direct appeal.

[that a] reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).