Court Opinion

ID: 9494499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:38:55.010826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:26.379887
License: Public Domain

BYE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
Judge Bright argues persuasively in dissent that Minnesota courts have spoken inconsistently in explaining when a defendant may raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. I do not believe that Minnesota appellate decisions on this topic are wildly divergent, and I find that these decisions can, for the most part, be reconciled. I nevertheless share Judge Bright’s concern that Minnesota courts have not spoken with the clarity demanded by judges, lawyers and pro se prisoners alike.
' If we excuse Kenneth Murray’s default because it springs from an inconsistent application of state procedural rules, see Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423-25, 111 S.Ct. 850, 112 L.Ed.2d 935 (1991), we must consider the merits of his three ineffective assistance of counsel claims. I would affirm the district court’s denial of a writ of habeas corpus because Murray has failed to demonstrate that his trial lawyer’s alleged errors “undermine confidence in the outcome,” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), or that his claims demand an evidentiary hearing.