Cited by

¶ 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)).

DISCUSSION ¶18 We consider the superior court’s denial of post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the court “makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

¶12 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve “a mixed question of fact and law.” ¶ 4 (2017) (citation omitted).

“An abuse of discretion occurs if the [post-conviction relief] court makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

The court abuses its discretion if it “makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).

–93, ¶¶ 74–76 (2017) (A disagreement among expert witnesses “goes to the weight and credibility” of the expert opinions, “matters reserved for the fact-finder’s consideration and determination.”).

The court abuses its discretion if it “makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” ¶ 4 (2017).