This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Filed May 16, 2006
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 00919698
Craig E. Cascarano,
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Donna J. Wolfson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.
Appellant challenges the postconviction court’s denial of her petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel related to her 2002 conviction of and sentence for first- and second-degree assault and criminal vehicular operation. Because appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was fully considered on direct appeal, we affirm.
Thereafter, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The postconviction court denied the petition, finding that “[appellant’s] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel has been fully considered on direct appeal.” Appellant now challenges that denial, arguing that the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim should be reviewed again because it was originally pursued pro se.
direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims
known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for
postconviction relief.” State v. Knaffla, 309
sole issue in this appeal is whether appellant’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel should be reconsidered even though it has already been
raised and ruled on by this court.
Appellant concedes that the issue of ineffective assistance was raised
in her direct appeal. This court
considered the issue and held that appellant’s counsel’s assistance was not
ineffective. State v.
is simply no merit to appellant’s assertion that her former pro se status
warrants reconsideration of her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. “Although some accommodations may be made for
pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants
are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with
court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (
appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was fully considered on
direct appeal, the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by refusing
to reconsider the claim in her petition for postconviction relief. See