This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C5-96-557 Duane James Tuttle, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Filed August 13, 1996 Affirmed Schumacher, Judge Pine County District Court File No. K791993 K. Scott Belfry, Belfry Law Office, Chtd., 6 Thirteenth Street, Cloquet, MN 55720 (for Appellant) Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent) John K. Carlson, Pine County Attorney, Brent S. Schafer, Assistant County Attorney, 315 Sixth Street, Suite 8, Pine City, MN 55063 (for Respondent) Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Harten, Judge. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N SCHUMACHER, Judge Duane James Tuttle appeals from a district court order denying his petition for postconviction relief. We affirm. FACTS Tuttle was charged in December 1991 with three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct arising out of various incidents of sexual abuse involving his minor stepdaughter. He initially pleaded guilty to one count, but subsequently moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion. Tuttle filed a direct appeal claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Tuttle, 504 N.W.2d 252, 256 (Minn. App. 1993). We affirmed, noting that Tuttle had not raised the argument in the district court, but concluding that it "clearly fail[ed] on the merits." Id. at 257. In May 1995, Tuttle petitioned for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiation process. The district court denied the petition, reasoning that this court had considered the same issue at the time of Tuttle's direct appeal. Tuttle now appeals from the district court's order denying his petition for postconviction relief. D E C I S I O N We will not disturb the decision of a postconviction court absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Kelly, 535 N.W.2d 345, 347 (Minn. 1995). As a general rule, a court may not properly consider issues raised in a petition for postconviction relief where the petitioner raised the same issues in a direct appeal or knew of and could have raised the issues at that time. State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). The preclusive effect of this rule extends to cases involving claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn. 1995) (affirming denial of postconviction relief where issue of ineffective representation was previously decided on direct appeal); Dent v. State, 441 N.W.2d 497, 498-99 (Minn. 1989) (barring petitioner from asserting claim that was known but not raised at time of direct appeal). Tuttle argues that this court did not have proper authority to address his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of his direct appeal and that, therefore, our earlier decision should not preclude him from now raising the same claim. While it is true that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are most appropriately raised in the district court, this preferred practice does not prohibit appellate courts from addressing such claims as part of a direct appeal. See State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328, 332 n. 5, 332-33 (Minn. 1984) (addressing merits of claim of ineffective representation on direct appeal, even though claim was not raised in district court). This court, therefore, properly exercised its authority by addressing Tuttle's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of his direct appeal in State v. Tuttle, 504 N.W.2d 252, 257- 58 (Minn. App. 1993). Our determination in that case precludes reconsideration of Tuttle's claim in a postconviction proceeding. Affirmed.