Opinion ID: 1890374
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Additional prosecutorial misconduct claims

Text: Dobbins's appellate counsel raised several prosecutorial misconduct claims on direct appeal. We agreed with Dobbins that there were multiple instances of misconduct, but determined that a new trial was not warranted. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d at 513. Dobbins now argues that if appellate counsel would have raised the additional prosecutorial misconduct claims he articulates in his postconviction petition regarding the State's cross-examination of Dobbins and statements the State made during closing argument, we would have ordered a new trial on direct appeal because of the cumulative effects of the misconduct. Dobbins has not alleged facts that show that his appellate counsel's failure to raise additional prosecutorial misconduct claims was unreasonable. We have said that [c]ounsel appealing a criminal conviction has no duty to raise all possible issues. Dent v. State, 441 N.W.2d 497, 500 (Minn.1989). We have also said that [l]awyers representing appellants should be encouraged to limit their contentions on appeal at least to those which may be legitimately regarded as debatable. Case v. State, 364 N.W.2d 797, 800 (Minn.1985) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Dent, we explained that in reviewing an assertion of ineffective counsel, the question is whether the representation and the assistance were reasonable in the light of all the circumstances, not whether counsel raised each claim the appellant wanted her to raise. 441 N.W.2d at 500. Here, appellate counsel was obviously aware of the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and successfully raised several prosecutorial misconduct claims on direct appeal. Further, it appears that the additional prosecutorial misconduct claims that Dobbins argues his appellate counsel should have raised lack merit. We conclude that appellate counsel's decision to advance some prosecutorial misconduct claims and not other meritless claims was a reasonable strategic decision. See Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440, 449 (Minn.2006) (Because appellate counsel's failure to raise meritless claims does not constitute deficient performance, [petitioner's] claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel fails on the performance prong.). By selecting and advancing specific prosecutorial misconduct claims, Dobbins's appellate counsel exercised the customary skills and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney. Because we conclude appellate counsel's representation in selecting certain prosecutorial misconduct claims to bring on direct appeal did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, we need not reach the prejudice prong.