Cited by

“Simply disagreeing with strategy decisions cannot support a determination that representation was inadequate.” ¶ 8 (2017).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 19 (2012), and constitutional issues de novo, ¶ 4 (2017).

¶ 4 (2017); ¶ 19 (2012).

“In short, reviewing courts must be very cautious in deeming trial counsel’s assistance ineffective when counsel’s challenged acts or omissions might have a reasonable explanation.” ¶ 7 (2017).

¶ 4 (2017); ¶ 16 (App. 2020).

But this Court “presume[s] that jurors follow the court’s instructions.” State v. Pandeli (Pandeli II), ¶ 58 (2017).

¶17 We evaluate counsel’s reasonableness by examining the “practice and expectations of the legal community, and ask[], in light of all the circumstances, whether counsel’s performance was reasonable under prevailing professional norms.” ¶ 10 (2021) ( ¶ 5 (2017)).