State v. Nicks, 831 N.W.2d 493

Nicks was convicted in Hennepin County District Court of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree murder.
Cellphone records and other circumstantial evidence linked Nicks to the vicinity of the shooting and to threatening calls, though the defense argued those calls did not occur or were misrecorded.
Trial counsel failed to obtain Hollis’s cellphone records and did not pursue a forensic examination of Hollis’s phone; confusion over Sprint subpoena responses contributed.
Postconviction proceedings challenged trial counsel’s effectiveness and the admissibility of cellphone-call evidence; a forensic examination later suggested Hollis did not receive the 12:11 a.m. calls.
The postconviction court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; the Supreme Court granted review and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel, ultimately reversing and remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the Strickland claim.
The majority holds that Nicks is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to develop facts about trial counsel’s effectiveness; the dissent would affirm summary denial, arguing trial strategy and record-based issues do not warrant a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nicks is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.	Nicks alleges trial counsel failed to obtain Hollis's cellphone records and to order a forensic examination, below a reasonable standard.	State contends any shortfall was a strategic trial decision not subject to revision.	Yes; the postconviction court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing.
Whether the failure to obtain cellphone records prejudiced the outcome.	Absent records, the defense could contest the eyewitness and premeditation evidence.	Even without records, other strong evidence supported guilt; prejudice not shown.	There is a reasonable possibility the result would differ if records were admitted.
Whether the Larrison false-testimony claim supports relief.	Postconviction evidence suggests witnesses’ testimony may be false.	Even if false, defendant was not surprised and could meet the testimony; no relief warranted.	No relief; Larrison criteria not satisfied.
Whether the prostitution-evidence and prosecutorial-misconduct claims warrant relief.	Evidence and prosecutorial conduct improperly influenced the jury.	Claims lack sufficient basis for an evidentiary hearing or new trial.	Merits deemed insufficient for relief.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (thorough investigation required; failure to obtain information can violate. constitutional duties)
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (failure to investigate should be scrutinized; beyond strategic decisions)
State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 2003) (de novo review of mixed questions of law and fact in ineffective-assistance claims)
Opsahl v. State, 677 N.W.2d 414 (Minn. 2004) (standard for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims; deference to postconviction findings)
Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. 2012) (evidentiary hearing standards in postconviction relief)
Buckingham v. State, 799 N.W.2d 229 (Minn. 2011) (evidentiary hearings and standards in postconviction relief)
Leake v. State, 737 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 2007) (context for postconviction evidentiary hearings)
Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 2001) (motion to remand and evidentiary considerations in postconviction)