Cited by

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).

We need not address both deficient performance and prejudice “if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” ¶ 6 (2017) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984)).

We presume jurors follow their instructions, ¶ 58 (2017), and the State’s mischaracterization of the factor analysis did not create fundamental error.

We review a trial court's decision to give an instruction, over objection, for an abuse of discretion, -64, ¶ 51 (2009), but we review constitutional issues de novo, ¶ 4 (2017).

Petitioner only asserts that counsel conducted “no investigation” and failed to “challenge any part of the [S]tate’s case on material [or] constitutional grounds.” -83, ¶¶ 2, 9, 22 (2017) (PCR counsel asserted fifteen specific IAC claims, including failure to cross-examine the State’s key witness and failure to present petitioner’s brain imaging scans.).

6 ¶ 4 (2017) (–44, ¶ 6 (App. 2013)).

¶5 We will not disturb the superior court’s decision absent an abuse of discretion, which is found where the court “makes an error of law or fails to adequately investigate the facts necessary to support its decision.” 2 ¶ 4 (2017).

We need not address both deficient performance and prejudice “if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” ¶ 6 (2017) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).