Jackson v. State, 817 N.W.2d 717

In 2007, Jackson was convicted of first-degree murder for a gang-related shooting and attempted first-degree murder for the benefit of a gang.
The convictions followed a second trial after a prior mistrial; the State presented gang evidence to prove the crimes were for the benefit of a gang.
On direct appeal, Jackson challenged discovery omissions and the admission of gang-affiliation evidence; we affirmed.
Jackson later filed a federal habeas petition which was denied, and a state postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was filed.
The postconviction court denied relief, and on appeal we address whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising specific federal claims.
We consider three issues: ineffective assistance for failing to challenge the evidentiary ruling, for failing to argue due process violation, and for failing to preserve federal claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate counsel's failure to challenge evidence ruling	Jackson	Jackson	No reversal; failure not prejudicial; harmless error analysis supports denial
Appellate counsel's failure to raise due process claim	Jackson	Jackson	No due process violation established; unlikely the outcome would differ
Failure to preserve federal constitutional claims for habeas review	Jackson	Jackson	Appellate counsel not required to raise all possible federal claims; no merit in preservation claim

Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1985) (right to effective appellate counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (duty of appellate counsel to raise claims)
Nunn v. State, 753 N.W.2d 657 (Minn.2008) (claims on direct appeal; scope of appellate review)
Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440 (Minn.2006) (flexible approach to Strickland prongs)
Knaffla, State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1976) (bar on raising issues not pursued on direct appeal)
Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531 (Minn.2007) (postconviction review and appellate counsel duties)
Malone v. Vasquez, 138 F.3d 711 (8th Cir.1998) (specific claims required to show prejudice)
Wright v. State, 765 N.W.2d 85 (Minn.2009) (counsel need not raise every colorable claim)
State v. Chomnarith, 654 N.W.2d 660 (Minn.2003) (due process analysis for admission of evidence)
State v. Richards, 495 N.W.2d 187 (Minn.1992) (due process and fundamental fairness)
State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (Minn.1976) (Knaffla rule for postconviction relief)