Pierre Lamont Leake, Petitioner, Appellant v. State of Minnesota, Respondent

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of most of Leake’s postconviction claims, concluding that several claims were procedurally barred, lacked factual support, or involved reasonable trial strategy. It held that the record did not establish prejudice from the trial judge’s improper communication with the jury, error in admitting the ex-wife’s testimony, or ineffective assistance concerning the alibi witness, hearsay objections, diminished-capacity theory, and appellate procedures. Because the record did not resolve whether counsel misadvised Leake about the consequences of rejecting a plea offer, the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue and specified potential remedies. Justice Hanson, dissenting, joined by Justices Meyer and Gildea, would have affirmed entirely because Leake failed to plead sufficient facts showing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.