This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat.  480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).


Duane James Tuttle, petitioner,


State of Minnesota,

Filed August 13, 1996
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

	Duane James Tuttle appeals from a district court order 
denying his petition for postconviction relief.  We affirm.


	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.


	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.