author: PAGE, Justice. HANSON, Justice

text:
    Pierre LaMont LEAKE, petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
    No. A06-1357.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Aug. 16, 2007.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 2007.

      Pierre LaMont Leake, Stillwater, MN, pro se.
    Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Michael 0. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondent.
   OPINION

PAGE, Justice.

Appellant Pierre LaMont Leake appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for posteonviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Leake was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for the 2003 stabbing death of Megan Fisher and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn.2005). We affirmed Leake’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Id. We held: (1) that the evidence with respect to premeditation was sufficient, id. at 321; (2) that Leake’s admission that he used force in commission of a prior offense supported application of the heinous crime statute mandating a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release, id. at 324-25; (3) that jury verdicts of guilty as to first-degree murder but not guilty as to second-degree murder were logically but not legally inconsistent, id. at 326; (4) that purported prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument did not satisfy the plain error test, id. at 326-28; and (5) that Leake failed to demonstrate that the indictment should be overturned, id. at 328. Accordingly, we affirmed Leake’s conviction and the sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release. Id. at 315.

Leake subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief seeking an evidentiary hearing, a new trial, vacation of his sentence, and other relief. In the petition, he asserted that: (1) the trial court judge made an improper ex parte communication to the jury; (2) the trial court’s ruling on the applicability of the spousal communication privilege was erroneous; (3) the trial judge was biased against him; (4) the jury instructions were confusing or inaccurate; (5) the presen-tence investigation contained inaccuracies; and (6) he was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. In denying the petition, the court found that Leake failed to allege facts demonstrating that the performance of his appellate counsel was objectively unreasonable and failed to show that the outcome of his direct appeal would have been different but for the alleged errors of his appellate counsel. The court also found that a number of Leake’s claims, although they were known or should have been known at the time of his direct appeal, were not raised at that time and were therefore barred by the rule set out in this court’s decision in State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976). This appeal followed. The state did not file a brief opposing Leake’s appeal. With the exception of one issue, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of review. Because we cannot, on the record presented, determine whether Leake was denied effective assistance of counsel in connection with advice he received from his trial counsel about the consequences of rejecting a plea offer, we remand to the postconviction court for an evidentiary hearing on that issue.

When reviewing a postconviction court’s decisions, we examine only whether the postconviction court’s findings are supported by sufficient evidence. Russell v. State, 562 N.W.2d 670, 672 (Minn.1997). We will reverse a decision of a postconviction court only if that court abused its discretion. Id. However, we review issues of law de novo. Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Minn.2006). Postconviction courts are required to hold an eviden-tiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law “[ujnless the petition and the files and records of the proceedings conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2006). Allegations in a postconviction petition must be “more than argumentative assertions without factual support,” Hodgson v. State, 540 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Minn.1995), and an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the petitioner fails to allege facts that are sufficient to entitle him or her to the relief requested. Fratzke v. State, 450 N.W.2d 101, 102 (Minn.1990).

Once a direct appeal has been taken, all claims raised in that appeal, all claims known at the time of that appeal, and all claims that should have been known at the time of that appeal will not be considered in a subsequent petition for postconvietion relief. Black v. State, 560 N.W.2d 83, 85 (Minn.1997); Knaffla, 309 Minn, at 252, 243 N.W.2d at 741. But there are two exceptions to this “Knaffla rule.” First, if a claim is known to a defendant at the time of direct appeal but is not raised, it will not be barred by the rule if the claim’s novelty was so great that its legal basis was not reasonably available when direct appeal was taken. Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn.1995). Second, even if the claim’s legal basis was sufficiently available, substantive review may be allowed “when fairness so requires and when the petitioner did not ‘deliberately and inexcusably’ fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” Russell, 562 N.W.2d at 672 (quoting Roby, 531 N.W.2d at 484). Leake does not contend that either of these exceptions apply to any of the claims in his petition.

When a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be adjudicated on the basis of the trial record, it must be brought on direct appeal or it is barred by the Knaffla rule if raised in a postconviction petition. Torres v. State, 688 N.W.2d 569, 572 (Minn.2004). But a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel that cannot be resolved on the trial court record alone need not be brought in a direct appeal and may be brought in a postcon-viction petition. Id. Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on direct appeal are not barred by the Knajfla rule in a first postconviction appeal because they could not have been brought at any earlier time. See Schneider v. State, 725 N.W.2d 516, 521 (Minn.2007).

To receive an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must allege facts that would “affirmatively show that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that but for the errors, the result would have been different.” Wilson v. State, 582 N.W.2d 882, 885 (Minn.1998); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). An attorney’s performance is substandard when the attorney does not exercise “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would [exercise] under the circumstances.” State v. Doppler, 590 N.W.2d 627, 633 (Minn.1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Matters of trial strategy lie within the discretion of trial counsel and will not be second-guessed by appellate courts. See id. Appellate counsel need not raise all possible claims on direct appeal, and a claim need not be raised if “appellate counsel could have legitimately concluded that [it] would not [prevail].” See Schneider, 725 N.W.2d at 523.

I.

First, we address Leake’s argument that the judge at his trial engaged in improper ex parte communication with the jury entitling him to a new trial. He also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for not addressing the issue at the time it arose and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. Because the trial judge’s contacts with the jury are evident from the trial record, Leake either knew or should have known of this issue at the time of his direct appeal. Having failed to raise the issue on direct appeal, the issue is barred under the Knajfla rule. The same is true for his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel related to this issue. See Black, 560 N.W.2d at 85. Leake’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, however, is not barred because the claim could not have been brought on direct appeal. See Schneider, 725 N.W.2d at 521. The claim nonetheless fails because Leake cannot show that his appellate counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness in that his appellate counsel could have legitimately concluded that the claim would not prevail.

During jury deliberations, while out of the presence of the jury, the judge stated the following:

We have another note from the jury. “Do we give a verdict on both counts? For instance, can the defendant be found guilty on both counts?”
The Rules are pretty adamant on saying any communication to the jury should be in the courtroom in the presence of the defendant. I violated that when I sent this other note back because I thought it was just a housekeeping thing. They had four forms and they had signed one.

Immediately thereafter, the jury was brought into the courtroom, and the judge stated:

Members of the jury, I have a note here. It’s not signed. I assume it’s from one of the jurors, probably the foreperson.
Earlier there was a note asking — I don’t have it in front of me here but it asked whether it was sufficient to sign one verdict form. I sent a note back with the deputy saying two.
Now I have the following note. “Do we give a verdict on both counts? For instance, can the defendant be found guilty of both counts?”
The answer is as follows: Yes, as to the first question, do we give a verdict on both counts? The answer is yes, if you can, according to the instructions I gave you.
Second question, can the defendant be found guilty, the answer to that is the defendant may be found either not guilty or guilty of either or both counts.

No party objected on the record or asked for any clarification.

A criminal defendant has a right to be present at every stage of the trial. State v. Martin, 723 N.W.2d 613, 619 (Minn.2006); see also Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 1(1). Responding to a deliberating jury’s question is a stage of the trial, requiring the defendant’s presence. State v. Sessions, 621 N.W.2d 751, 755 (Minn.2001). In addition, Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 19(2) and (3), provide that when a jury asks to review testimony or other evidence or “desires to be informed on any point of law, the jurors, after notice to the prosecutor and defense counsel, shall be conducted to the courtroom,” at which time the jury’s requests may be addressed.

Communication between a judge and a jury on a substantive matter without the defendant’s presence or consent may be reversible error. Martin, 723 N.W.2d at 619. Reversal is not automatic, however, and prejudice will not be presumed simply because the proceedings contained a defect. State v. Dame, 670 N.W.2d 261, 266 (Minn.2003). In State v. Erickson, a case in which we addressed “private communications or contact” with deliberating jurors, we indicated that “a new trial will be ordered only upon a showing of prejudice by the appellant.” 597 N.W.2d 897, 901 (Minn.1999). We further indicated that prejudice would be presumed if the defendant produces evidence “showing * * * private communication or contact or other circumstances suggesting direct or indirect improper influence or jury tampering.” Id. at 902. If a presumption of prejudice arises, the appellant is entitled to relief unless the state rebuts that presumption. Martin, 723 N.W.2d at 624. In considering whether the presumption of prejudice has been rebutted, we consider the circumstances surrounding the communication and the substance of the communication.

The facts of this case indicate that the trial court improperly responded to a question contained in a note from the jury without Leake being present. Because responding to a deliberating jury’s question is a stage of trial, the court’s contact with the jury was error. Given the circumstances surrounding the communication and the communication’s substance, we nonetheless conclude that the communication does not suggest improper influence or jury tampering. Nor does the record suggest that Leake was prejudiced by the communication. According to the record, the note in question asked whether it was sufficient for the jury to sign one verdict form. In response, the court “sent a note back with the deputy saying two.”

While the procedure used by the trial court to answer the jury question was improper, there is no allegation, much less any evidence, indicating that the trial court entered the jury room or otherwise contacted the jury personally. Further, the court’s written response to the jury’s question was neutral and there is no allegation that the answer was in any way incorrect or misleading. Moreover, any possible prejudice from the procedure used was mitigated when the court, on the record in open court with Leake present, clarified his answer to the jury’s first question. On that basis, we therefore conclude that, had the claim been raised on direct appeal, it would not have prevailed. Because the claim would not have prevailed on direct appeal, Leake’s appellate counsel was not ineffective in not raising it at that time. Leake is entitled to no relief on this claim.

II.

Next, we address Leake’s argument that the trial court erred when it concluded that the spousal communication privilege was not applicable to certain testimony by Leake’s ex-wife. Leake also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue this issue adequately to the trial court, that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on direct appeal, and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim related to this issue. Because we conclude that the issue related to the trial court’s purported erroneous ruling and any inadequacies in trial representation were either known or should have been known to Leake at the time of his direct appeal, those issues are barred under the Knaffln rule. See Black, 560 N.W.2d at 85. As noted above, Leake’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims are not barred. See Schneider, 725 N.W.2d at 521. They nonetheless fail.

Leake was married to Kathy Deutschlander at the time of the murder. The state called Deutschlander as a witness. Before she testified, Leake requested that she be precluded from testifying to any statements made by Leake to Deutschlander during marriage on the grounds that they were subject to the spousal communication privilege. The state agreed that such statements should be excluded but contended that certain statements by Leake on the morning of the crime were not protected by the privilege.

The trial court heard offers of proof from both sides. The state asserted Deutschlander overheard Leake make certain statements to himself that were not directed at Deutschlander. Leake asserted that the statements in question were made to Deutschlander. Based on these offers of proof, the court found that Leake’s statements “were not communications to the spouse * * * but in effect [were] overheard remarks by one spouse which turned out to be in the presence of the other,” and permitted Deutschlander to testify regarding those statements. Deutschlander then testified that she overheard Leake, in the hours after the murder, talking to himself as if reciting a to-do list while placing clothes and towels in a bag.

“The availability of a privilege is an evidentiary ruling to be determined by the trial court and reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Palubicki 700 N.W.2d 476, 482 (Minn.2005). Minnesota Statutes 595.02, subd. 1(a) (2006), provides that a husband or wife cannot “during the marriage or after-wards, without the consent of the other, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage.” In this context, “communication” has been held to mean “all written or spoken words, acts, and gestures which were intended by one spouse to convey a meaning or message to the other.” Palubicki 700 N.W.2d at 483. The party invoking this privilege bears the burden of proving its applicability. Id.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Leake’s statements, which were overheard by Deutschlander, “were not communications to the spouse.” Therefore, the trial court did not err when it permitted Deutschlander’s testimony regarding those statements. Because there was no error in admitting Deutschlander’s testimony regarding Leake’s statements, Leake’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims necessarily fail. See Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 356-57 (Minn.1996) (noting that a defendant must be prejudiced by his appellate counsel’s failure to raise a claim).

III.

Leake also argues that the trial court judge was biased against him, that the presentence investigation contained inaccuracies, and that the court’s instructions were prejudicial, confusing, and misleading. Because we conclude that each of these claims was either known or should have been known to Leake at the time of his direct appeal, we further conclude that they are barred under the Knaffla rule. See Black, 560 N.W.2d at 85.

IV.

Leake further contends that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel by his counsel’s failure to call a known alibi witness to testify. In addition, he argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in his direct appeal. Both of these ineffective assistance of counsel claims fail.

Decisions about which witnesses to call at trial and what information to present to the jury are questions of trial strategy that lie within the discretion of trial counsel. State v. Jones, 392 N.W.2d 224, 236 (Minn.1986). Given our reluctance to second-guess trial counsel’s strategic decisions, we are satisfied, based on the record before us, that trial counsel’s representation with respect to this alleged alibi witness did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Because Leake’s claim against his trial counsel fails, so too does his claim against his appellate counsel. Therefore, the postcon-viction court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing these claims without an eviden-tiary hearing.

V.

During trial, the state offered to recommend that Leake be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of release after 30 years plus any time he would be required to serve for a probation violation related to a 1998 conviction in exchange for a plea of guilty by Leake. The offer was placed on the record. During the on-the-record discussions of the state’s plea offer, both Leake’s trial counsel and the trial court told Leake that, should he be convicted of first-degree murder as charged, he would face a potential sentence of life with the possibility of release after 30 years plus an additional consecutive sentence for an unrelated probation violation. Leake rejected the offer and was ultimately sentenced, contrary to what he was told by his trial counsel and the trial court, to life in prison without the possibility of release pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.106 (2002), the state’s heinous crimes statute. Leake now claims that, during the plea discussions, his counsel misled him into believing that under the worst-case scenario, if convicted, he would be eligible for release after 30 years plus the consecutive sentence related to the probation violation. Leake contends that his trial counsel’s failure to accurately advise him about the consequences he faced when rejecting the state’s plea offer constitutes ineffective assistance of trial counsel. As with his other ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we read Leake’s petition and the arguments in his brief to this court to claim that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct appeal. While it is clear from the record that Leake either knew or should have known of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim at the time of his direct appeal, we must nonetheless determine whether Leake’s trial counsel’s performance was ineffective in order to resolve the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.

Although we have held that a defendant may bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if he was induced to enter a guilty plea by the objectively unreasonable advice of his attorney, see State v. Ecker, 524 N.W.2d 712, 718 (Minn.1994), we have not had occasion to consider whether a defendant who rejects an offer by the state to plead guilty in reliance on incorrect advice from defense counsel implicates the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But see State v. Powell, 578 N.W.2d 727, 731-33 (Minn.1998) (indicating in dicta that, were an attorney to fail to communicate a plea offer to his client, the standard ineffective assistance analysis would apply); State v. Ray, 273 N.W.2d 652, 655-56 (Minn.1978) (holding that if defense counsel improperly caused the defendant to reject a plea deal, the defendant may be entitled to relief).

Courts from other jurisdictions, however, have held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is implicated by the decision to reject a plea bargain. See, e.g., In re Alvernaz, 2 Cal.4th 924, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 830 P.2d 747, 753-55 (1992); People v. Curry, 178 Ill.2d 509, 227 Ill.Dec. 395, 687 N.E.2d 877, 882 (1997); Williams v. State, 326 Md. 367, 605 A.2d 103, 106-08 (1992). Generally, these courts have held that an attorney’s advice falls below objectively reasonable standards, thereby constituting ineffective assistance, when the attorney’s inaccurate or misleading factual statements tend to affect a defendant’s decision to reject a plea bargain and proceed to trial. See, e.g., Alvernaz, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 830 P.2d at 753-55 (noting agreement among “all federal and state courts presented with this issue”); Curry, 227 Ill.Dec. 395, 687 N.E.2d at 887; Williams, 605 A.2d at 108. These courts also indicate that a defendant is prejudiced by such ineffective assistance if there is a reasonable likelihood the plea bargain would have been accepted had the defendant been properly advised. See, e.g., Alvernaz, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 830 P.2d at 756; Curry, 227 Ill.Dec. 395, 687 N.E.2d at 888. But see Williams, 605 A.2d at 110 (using “substantial probability” test). We see no reason to reject the approach these courts have taken.

Here, count I of the indictment read, in relevant part:

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (FELONY)
MINN. STAT. 2002 § 609.185(a)(1); § 609.11; § 609.106, SUBD. 2(2) PENALTY: LIFE

Minnesota Statutes § 609.106, subd. 2(2), requires that a defendant be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release under certain circumstances. Thus, given count I of the indictment, defense counsel should have been on notice that Leake faced the possibility of being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. Yet, in discussing the state’s plea offer with Leake on the record, defense counsel did not advise Leake that he faced a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release. In the absence of facts in the record indicating that Leake was aware that he faced a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release at the time he declined the state’s plea offer, we cannot say with any certainty that Leake’s defense counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness or that Leake’s decision to decline the state’s plea offer was unaffected by his defense counsel’s performance. Accordingly, we cannot say with any certainty that Leake’s appellate counsel could have legitimately concluded that an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim had no reasonable likelihood of succeeding. Therefore, we remand to the postconviction court to hold a hearing for the purpose of determining whether Leake’s appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance when appellate counsel failed to bring this ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. As part of this hearing, it will likely be necessary to determine whether trial counsel’s failure to advise Leake at the time of the plea offer that he faced a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release constituted ineffective assistance of trial counsel and, if it did, whether there is a reasonable likelihood that Leake would have accepted the state’s plea offer had he been properly advised. Cf. Ray, 273 N.W.2d at 655-56 (stating that postconviction proceedings should examine whether defense counsel’s conflict of interest improperly caused the defendant to reject a plea offer).

In the interest of judicial economy, we believe it is prudent to provide some guidance to the postconviction court should it determine that Leake’s claim has merit. Leake does not specifically identify the relief he believes would be appropriate in the event that he prevails on this ineffective assistance of counsel claim. A number of courts that have addressed the issue have concluded that a new trial is the appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Alvernaz, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 830 P.2d at 760; Commonwealth v. Napper, 254 Pa.Super. 54, 385 A.2d 521, 524 (1978). But some courts have concluded that the remedy of a new trial is not well tailored to the harm done by the constitutional violation and have, in effect, allowed the defendant to specifically enforce the plea offer. See, e.g., Williams, 605 A.2d at 110-11 (holding that the appropriate remedy is to allow the defendant to now accept the plea offer). Still other courts have rejected specific enforcement of the plea offer because the state, after having gone through the first trial, may no longer wish to make that offer, and because the trial court should not be bound to accept the plea under the terms of the offer. See, e.g., Alvernaz, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 830 P.2d at 758-60. One court has solved this dilemma by remanding for a new trial but recognizing that the plea bargaining process can begin anew, at the state’s option. Curry, 227 Ill.Dec. 395, 687 N.E.2d at 890-91.

On the unique circumstances of this case, we hold that if the postconviction court determines that Leake is entitled to relief on this ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, Leake may accept the original plea agreement offered by the state and be resentenced in accord with its terms. If, however, the state, based on valid reasons, objects to specific performance of the original plea offer or the district court, having finally had an opportunity to consider the plea agreement and the plea, rejects the plea, Leake shall be entitled to withdraw his plea and receive a new trial.

VI.

We next address Leake’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel by his counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate pre-sentence investigation and pursue a diminished capacity defense, as Leake claims it would have reduced his liability from first-degree murder to second-degree murder. This claim has no merit. It is clear from our case law that Minnesota does not recognize a diminished capacity as a defense. See Cuypers v. State, 711 N.W.2d 100, 105 (Minn.2006). Therefore, defense counsel’s failure to raise a diminished capacity defense did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. For the same reason, Leake’s appellate counsel was not ineffective.

VII.

Next, Leake argues that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel by his counsel’s failure to object to certain hearsay testimony despite the judge’s observation that “extensive hearsay of very questionable admissibility” had been elicited. He further argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in his direct appeal. Because Leake should have known of this ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim on direct appeal, it is barred by the Knaffla rule. See Black, 560 N.W.2d at 85. Leake’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, while not barred under Knaffla, v. see Schneider, 725 N.W.2d at 521, fails on the merits.

Decisions about objections at trial are matters of trial strategy. White v. State, 711 N.W.2d 106, 110 (Minn.2006). As pointed out by the trial court,

there may [have been] no other way to get in the fact that the victim is selling drugs * * *. I think tactically, if I were defense counsel, I’d want to get into that and I’d realize that if I did I might have to do it through hearsay but it would open the door to hearsay for the State.

Thus, there were sound strategic reasons for Leake’s counsel not to object to the admission of the hearsay. Because we conclude that trial counsel’s failure to object to the hearsay testimony involved trial strategy, we also conclude that appellate counsel’s failure to raise this issue on direct appeal did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

VIII.

Leake contends that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel by his counsel’s failure to help Leake get a time extension to file a pro se brief or to inform Leake that he could file a motion for rehearing. Like Leake’s preceding claim, this claim has no merit. First, Leake had the opportunity to and in fact did file a pro se supplementary brief on direct appeal. And the record reflects that Leake had 30 days after receipt of his trial transcripts to complete his brief. Leake does not explain why he could not have included the ex parte communication claim in that brief or how he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to inform him that he could move for a rehearing. Thus, these ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims are nothing more than an argumentative assertion without factual support. Moreover, having already concluded that Leake is not entitled to any relief on his ex parte communication claim, this ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim necessarily fails.

IX.

Finally, we address Leake’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel by his appellate counsel’s failure to claim on direct appeal that the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory information regarding assurances made by the police to one of the state’s witnesses. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.01, subdivision 1(6), provides that “[t]he prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel any material or information within the prosecuting attorney’s possession and control that tends to negate or reduce the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged.” See also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). With respect to this claim, the record reflects that the prosecutor sent defense counsel an e-mail several months before Leake’s trial that indicated that the police had made certain assurances to the witness in question. Thus, the information having been disclosed and there being no violation of Rule 9.01, subdivision 1(6), the claim has no merit.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the postconviction court for an evidentiary hearing.

HANSON, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the district court’s denial of Leake’s post-conviction petition on all grounds, including the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As to the latter, I would (1) reframe the issue as being whether appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to argue on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective in advising Leake on the plea offer; and (2) determine that Leake has not alleged sufficient facts to show that appellate counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

A. Framing the Issue of Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel.

Because any claim of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding the plea offer could have been adjudicated on the basis of the trial record, it is Knaffla barred and cannot be brought as a direct claim by postconviction petition. Such a claim can only survive in a postconviction proceeding as an indirect claim encompassed within Leake’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. This means that the issue raised by Leake’s postconviction petition is whether appellate counsel’s failure to argue on direct appeal the ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding the plea offer fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

Although that issue includes the underlying question of whether trial counsel was ineffective in advising Leake on the plea offer, the answer to that underlying question does not necessarily end the inquiry because appellate counsel may have had legitimate reasons of appellate strategy to not argue that underlying question. For example, appellate counsel on direct appeal sought to obtain a judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence, a new trial for inconsistent verdicts or prosecutorial misconduct, or elimination of the sentencing enhancement factor found by the sentencing court. Appellate counsel did not seek to reinstate the state’s plea offer and may have concluded that an effort to do so would weaken the challenges to the conviction.

Further, to substantiate this claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, Leake must show that “the result would have been different.” Wilson v. State, 582 N.W.2d 882, 885 (Minn.1998). Thus, in addition to showing that appellate counsel was ineffective, Leake must show that:

1. If the issue of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel had been raised on direct appeal, it would have been successful in obtaining a remand.
2. On remand, Leake would be able to show that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to give or in giving incorrect advice on the plea offer and that, if trial counsel had been effective, he would have accepted the offer and entered a plea of guilty.
B. Did Leake Allege Facts Showing Appellate Counsel’s Representation to be Ineffective?

Leake’s postconviction petition does not allege any facts, but only alleges conclusions. The petition does not specifically claim ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and only makes the following vague allegation: “Sentencing court erred when it sentenced petitioner in lieu of attorney-client conflicts and denied effective assistance of counsel.”

In a memorandum submitted with the postconvietion petition, Leake argued several instances of alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel concerning the conduct of the trial and, as relevant to the issue here, argued:

Trial counsel’s failure to inform the petitioner of all ramifications that attached to rejecting states plea offer, thus taking away petitioners right to choice and make an informed decision. (T.p.209-11). The state offered the petitioner a sentence of “life (30 years) with the possibility of parole” in exchange for a guilty plea of first-degree murder. The state also offered to run the petitioners probation violation concurrent with the sentence, as opposed to consecutive. The trial court stated that if petitioner were found guilty of first-degree murder, he would have no choice but to sentence petitioner to life in prison, plus the probation violation sentence (which only added up to thirty months). Petitioner then was erroneously informed by trial counsel that he had two choices: 1) plead guilty to first-degree murder and be sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, or 2) risk going to trial, being found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison plus the probation violation sentence (thirty months). Trial counsel did not inform petitioner that due to his prior convictions, a sentence of life with out the possibility of parole was available nor ask the state would they even consider this option. If this option would have been available to the petitioner during plea negotiations, there is a reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have proceeded with trial and accepted offer.

Leake did not allege any facts to identify what the objective standard of reasonableness would be for trial counsel under these facts. He did not present any expert opinion about what that standard would be or that trial counsel’s representation fell below it. He did not allege that, if properly advised, he would have accepted the plea offer and entered a plea of guilty.

Further, Leake did not allege that appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing on direct appeal this aspect of trial counsel’s representation. Instead, Leake’s only arguments about appellate counsel concerned such counsel’s failure to argue a violation of Leake’s “right to be present at every stage of trial”; failure to inform Leake of all procedural options regarding the due date for his pro se brief; failure to argue ineffective assistance of trial counsel in connection with the trial judge’s alleged ex parte communication with jurors; failure to raise a Brady violation and denial of due process claim based on the state’s failure to disclose deals made with trial witnesses; and failure to raise arguments regarding Leake’s “spousal privilege.” Leake did not allege any facts to show what the objective standard of reasonableness would be to judge the effectiveness of appellate counsel’s selection of the issues to argue on direct appeal, or that appellate counsel’s representation fell below that standard. Likewise, Leake did not present any expert opinion about what that standard would be or that appellate counsel violated the standard.

On this postconviction record, I would conclude that Leake has not alleged sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing on this claim of the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

MEYER, Justice (dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Hanson.

GILDEA, Justice (dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Hanson.

      . The facts underlying Leake's conviction can be found in the court's decision on direct appeal and will not be repeated here unless necessary for resolution of the issues presented in this appeal.

      . Leake, citing Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003), argues that the Knaffla rule is unconstitutional. Massaro addresses only the appropriate time to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Massaro, 538 U.S. at 503, 123 S.Ct. 1690. Massaro applies only to the federal courts and we have, in the past, declined to follow its holding. Torres v. State, 688 N.W.2d 569, 572 (Minn.2004) ("Because the ruling in Massaro is based on the Supreme Court's supervisory power over federal courts and is not constitutional in nature, it does not bind us and we decline to adopt it.”). Therefore, Leake is entitled to no relief based on Massaro.

      . The dissent expresses concern that Leake does not properly raise this ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. Here, however, Leake filed his petition without the aid of an attorney, and in the past we have indicated that it may be appropriate to read the pleadings of pro se appellants with an understanding eye. See, e.g., Payne v. Ericlcson, 404 N.W.2d 277, 279 (Minn. 1987); Thomale v. State, 261 N.W.2d 353, 353 (Minn.1977); cf. Minn.Stat. § 590.03 (2006) (“The court shall liberally construe the petition and any amendments thereto and shall look to the substance thereof and waive any irregularities or defects in form.”). Moreover, in his petition Leake specifically identifies the factual circumstances giving rise to this claim and asserts that he believes his trial counsel's perform-anee was deficient. The petition also alleges that his "[a]ppellate counsel’s failure to raise 'ineffective assistance of counsel' claim on trial counsel, constituted conduct that was not ‘reasonable professional behavior’.” In addition, Leake asserts in his petition that, had he been properly informed, "there is a reasonable probability that [Leake] would not have proceeded with trial and accepted [the plea] offer.” While Leake does not specifically identify the objective standards of reasonableness applicable to his trial and appellate attorneys, it is obvious he believes that he was entitled to accurate information in the course of considering the state’s plea offer. Accordingly, we are satisfied that Leake has adequately raised this claim.

      . The indictment referenced Minn.Stat. § 609.106, subd. 2(2), which mandates a life sentence without release for a person convicted of committing first-degree murder in the course of a kidnapping. Leake, however, was charged with and ultimately convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. Thus, subdivision 2(3) of section 609.106, mandating life imprisonment without release for individuals convicted of first-degree premeditated murder who had been previously convicted of a heinous crime, is the applicable provision. Despite the minor error in the statute cited in the indictment, it should have been clear to Leake’s trial counsel that a sentence of life without release was possible.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: GILDEA, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    SOUTHERN MINNESOTA BEET SUGAR COOP, Relator, v. COUNTY OF RENVILLE, Respondent.
    No. A07-394.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Aug. 23, 2007.

      Robert A. Hill, Robert A. Hill & Associates, Ltd., James H. Gilbert James H. Gilbert Law Group, P.L.L.C., Eden Prairie, MN, for Relator.
    Marc J. Manderscheid, Briggs & Morgan, Minneapolis, MN, for Respondents.
    John F. Beukema, Faegre & Benson LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Amicus Curiae, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
   OPINION

GILDEA, Justice.

Relator Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Coop (SMBSC) contested the real property tax assessment of its sugar beet processing plant by respondent County of Renville (the county). After a trial, the Minnesota Tax Court concluded that neither party provided enough evidence to allow the court to determine the market value of the property. The court therefore affirmed the county assessor’s estimated market value of the property. SMBSC petitioned this court for a writ of certiora-ri. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the tax court.

This dispute involves the sugar beet processing plant that SMBSC operates on approximately 621 acres of land in Renville County (the subject property). The subject property includes 31 buildings (ranging in size from just over 200 square feet to approximately 120,000 square feet), 30 tanks, bins, and silos of various sizes (ranging from capacities of 100,000 gallons to just over 7.6 million gallons), and numerous improvements (including railroad track and rail switches, paved areas for piling sugar beets, and four ponds totaling 110 acres). Many of the buildings, tanks, bins, and silos, and improvements were constructed in 1973 and 1974, so that the facility could begin operating in 1975. Additional buildings were added sometime around 1990. SMBSC invested approximately $14.5 million for buildings, tanks, bins, and silos on the property between 1999 and 2002.

The county assessed property taxes based on its conclusion that the subject property had an estimated market value of $20,168,500 on January 2, 2003, and $20,134,000 on January 2, 2004. SMBSC petitioned the tax court for relief from the county’s real property tax assessment, contending that the estimated market value used by the county was greater than the subject property’s actual market value and that the subject property was unequally assessed as compared to other property.

At trial, the parties disagreed about what property was subject to tax and about the market value of the subject property. SMBSC’s witnesses contended that only some of the 30 tanks, bins, and silos on the subject property are taxable as real property, and its expert valued the property at $7.5 million. The county argued that all of the 30 tanks, bins, and silos are taxable as real property and that the market value of the property was $55 million.

The tax court concluded that all 30 tanks, bins, and silos on the property are taxable as real property. Specifically, the court concluded “[t]he thick juice storage tanks, concrete sugar storage silos, beet pellet storage bins, molasses storage tanks, fuel tanks, betaine tank, condenser tank, water tank, water clarifier, and ash tank, exclusive of equipment contained therein” and “[t]he two-layered shell, roof, floor, and interior column of the Weibull bin” are taxable real property. S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop v. County of Renville, Nos. C5-04-286 & CV-05-100, 2006 WL 3803470, at *3-4 (Minn. T.C. Dec. 22, 2006). The court also concluded that the subject property is a special purpose property. Id. at *4. The court concluded, however, that it could not “reach a well supported and reasonable determination as to the market value of the Subject Property based on the experts’ extrapolations and incomplete analyses” because SMBSC’s expert had not included an analysis as to all the “taxable components, such as the tanks, bins and silos and land improvements,” and the county’s expert had analyzed only one building “and from this extrapolated the replacement cost for the rest of the buildings.” Id. at *13-14. The court therefore affirmed the Renville County Assessor’s estimated market value of the subject property as $20,168,500 on January 2, 2003, and $20,134,000 on January 2, 2004. Id. at *3-4.

SMBSC appeals to this court, claiming that the tax court committed several errors. Specifically, SMBSC argues that the tax court erred when it (1) concluded that the tanks, bins, and silos on the subject property are taxable real property, (2) concluded that the subject property was special purpose property, (3) faded to make any findings with respect to the comparable sales evidence offered by SMBSC, (4) adopted the county assessor’s valuation in the absence of “affirming evidence,” and (5) failed to grant SMBSC relief on its unequal assessment claim.

Our review of the final order of the tax court is limited. Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 698 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn.2005). We determine only whether the tax court lacked jurisdiction, whether the tax court’s order is supported by the evidence and is in conformity with the law, and whether the tax court committed any other error of law. Minn. Stat. § 271.10, subd. 1 (2006); Jefferson v. Comm’r of Revenue, 631 N.W.2d 391, 394 (Minn.2001). We review de novo the tax court’s legal determinations. Hutchinson Tech., 698 N.W.2d at 6. But the tax court’s factual findings are reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard. 200 Levee Drive Ass’n, v. County of Scott, 532 N.W.2d 574, 576 (Minn.1995). Finally, we will not defer to the tax court’s valuation decision where the court has “ ‘completely fail[ed] to explain its reasoning.’ ” McNeilus Truck & Mfg., Inc. v. County of Dodge, 705 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Minn.2005) (quoting Hansen v. County of Hennepin, 527 N.W.2d 89, 93 (Minn.1995)). If the tax court’s reasoning is not explained in sufficient detail, we may remand to the tax court to reconsider the evidence and clarify its analysis. See id.; see also Renneke v. County of Brown, 255 Minn. 244, 248, 97 N.W.2d 377, 380 (1959) (remanding when there was no indication how the tax court determined the true market value of the property).

I.

This case is about the market value of the subject property. But before determining the market value, we must address whether the tax court properly identified what property was subject to tax. At trial, the parties agreed that the land and the buildings on the land were taxable real property, but the parties disagreed about whether the 30 tanks, bins, and silos, and the improvements on the land were taxable real property. The tax court concluded that the 30 disputed tanks, bins, and silos, “exclusive of equipment contained therein,” are taxable real property. S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop, 2006 WL 3803470, at *3-4.

By statute, all real property and personal property in this state is taxable unless otherwise exempt. See Minn.Stat. § 272.01 (2006). Minnesota Statutes § 272.03, subd. 1(a) (2006) broadly defines “real property” for the purposes of taxation: the term includes “the land itself, rails, ties, and other track materials annexed to the land, and all buildings, structures, and improvements or other fixtures on it.” Subdivision l(c)(i) of the statute, however, limits the broad definition in subdivision 1(a) by excluding from the definition of real property “tools, implements, machinery, and equipment attached to or installed in real property for use in the business or production activity conducted thereon, regardless of size, weight or method of attachment.”

But in 1985 the legislature limited the scope of the exclusion in subdivision 1(c)© through the adoption of subdivision l(c)(iii). This provision operates as an exception to the exclusion and provides:

The exclusion provided in clause (i) does not apply to the exterior shell of a structure which constitutes walls, ceilings, roofs, or floors if the shell of the structure has structural, insulation, or temperature control functions or provides protection from the elements. Such an exterior shell is included in the definition of real property even if it also has special functions distinct from that of a building.

Minn.Stat. § 272.03, subd. l(c)(iii) (2006). We have not had the opportunity to address subdivision l(c)(iii). We have, however, said that statutory provisions that exempt property from taxation should be strictly construed. E.g., ILHC of Eagan, LLC v. County of Dakota, 693 N.W.2d 412, 419 (Minn.2005). A logical corollary to that general rule is that exceptions (such as subdivision l(c)(iii)) to exclusion provisions (such as subdivision l(c)(i)) should be broadly construed.

Reading section 272.03, subdivision 1 in its entirety reveals that three steps are necessary to determine whether the 30 tanks, bins, and silos at issue in this case are taxable real property. The first step is to determine if the property at issue falls within the broad definition of real property in subdivision 1(a). The second step is to determine whether the exclusion in subdivision l(c)(i) applies. And the third step is to determine whether the exception to the exclusion, set forth in subdivision l(c)(iii), applies.

Turning to the first step, we have previously noted that the definition of real property in subdivision 1(a) is broad enough to include some objects that resemble equipment. See Barton Enters., Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 390 N.W.2d 776, 777 (Minn.1986) (concluding that even though the oil tanks might be classified as “tools, implements, machinery, and equipment,” the tanks are real property and subject to taxation because they provide shelter as well); Kdal, Inc. v. County of St. Louis, 308 Minn. 101, 103, 240 N.W.2d 560, 561 (1976) (“The terms ‘structure’ and ‘equipment’ are not mutually exclusive.”). We reach the same conclusion here and hold that the 30 disputed tanks, bins, and silos fall within the broad definition of subdivision 1(a).

But because “real property” and “equipment” are not mutually exclusive terms, the second step in the statutory analysis requires a determination of whether the tanks, bins, and silos fall within the definition of equipment under subdivision 1(c)©. ⅛ other words, are the tanks, bins, and silos “tools, implements, machinery, or equipment attached to or installed in real property for use in the business or production activity conducted thereon”? Minn.Stat. § 272.03, subd. l(c)(i). SMBSC contends, and we agree, that the tanks, bins, and silos meet the definition of equipment under subdivision 1(c)®.

If the tank, bin, or silo is both real property and equipment, then it is excluded from the definition of “real property” unless an exception to the exclusion in subdivision l(c)(i) applies. Accordingly, the third step in the statutory analysis is to determine whether the tank, bin, or silo that qualifies as equipment under the exclusion in subdivision l(c)(i) is a structure that has an “exterior shell” and “which constitutes walls, ceilings, roofs, or floors” and, if so, whether “the shell of the structure has structural, insulation, or temperature control functions or provides protection from the elements.” Minn.Stat. § 272.03, subd. l(c)(iii). If the tank, bin, or silo is such a structure, then “[t]he exclusion provided in clause (i) does not apply to the exterior shell of [the] structure” and the exterior shell of the tank, bin, or silo is included in the definition of real property. Id.

The tax court found that each tank, bin, and silo at issue had walls, a roof or a ceiling, and floors, and that the exterior shell of each both performs a structural function and provides shelter from the elements. S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop, 2006 WL 3803470, at ⅞2. The tax court therefore concluded that the various tanks, bins, and silos, “exclusive of equipment contained therein,” are taxable real property because they fell within the exception to the exclusion. Id. at *3-4.

The tax court’s factual findings that the 30 tanks, bins, and silos had walls, a roof or a ceiling, and floors, and that each performed a structural function of shelter are not clearly erroneous. Numerous witnesses testified about the sugar beet plant’s business operations and the nature of the tanks, bins, and silos located on the subject property. For instance, the former vice-president of operations for SMBSC testified that the sugar storage bins are used for storage and conditioning and they have “sides” or “walls,” and “tops” or “ceilings” that provide both a structural function and protection from the elements. He also testified that the Wei-bull bin has a “bottom” or “floor,” a “roof,” and “sides” or “walls” which provide a structural function by holding the sugar in a controlled environment and provide protection from the elements. He further testified that the thick juice tanks have “tops,” and are used for storing thick beet juice for variable periods of time (sometimes longer than a year). The tax court also inspected the property and had the opportunity to observe the tanks, bins, and silos at issue. Because the evidence in the record supports the tax court’s findings that each of the tanks, bins, and silos at issue had walls, a roof or a ceiling, and floors, and that each performs a structural function and provides shelter from the elements, the tax court’s findings are not clearly erroneous.

Because the evidence supports the tax court’s factual determination that the tanks, bins, and silos fell within the exception of subdivision l(c)(iii), the plain language of the statute leads us to conclude that the exterior shells of the tanks, bins, and silos are taxable. The tax court’s legal determination that these items were not excluded from taxation therefore was proper.

II.

Before turning to the valuation question, the tax court determined that the subject property is “special purpose property.” SMBSC contends the court’s determination that the subject property is special purpose property was error. We will overturn the tax court’s determination that the property is special purpose property only if it is clearly erroneous. See Fed. Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. State, 313 N.W.2d 619, 621 (Minn.1981).

We have said that special purpose property is “ ‘property that is treated in the market as adapted to or designed and built for a special purpose,’ ” and we have noted that the definition of special purpose property “ ‘combines both functional and structural aspects: a special purpose property becomes such either by its use for unique functions or by its distinctive, specially-designed structural details.’ ” Am. Express Fin. Advisors v. County of Carver, 573 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Minn.1998) (quoting Fed. Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 313 N.W.2d at 621-22). We have also said that “a special purpose property is one that, due to its unique function or design, is not likely to be sold on the market and cannot

readily be converted to other uses without a large capital investment or a substantial loss in the investment value of the property’s special features.” Id.

The tax court’s determination that the subject property is special purpose property is not clearly erroneous. The court considered the factors set forth in American Express Financial Advisors, 573 N.W.2d at 656. Specifically, the court concluded that the subject property is special purpose property because the subject property (1) has “unique designs” including structures designed specifically for processing sugar beets, (2) is unlikely to be sold on the market because there is a “limited market due to [the property’s] unique function and design,” and (3) is unlikely to be converted to another use without “a large capital investment” and a “massive loss in the investment value of the Subject Property’s special features.” S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop, 2006 WL 3803470, at *12-13.

The record evidence supports the court’s conclusions. First, the testimony of SMBSC’s former vice president indicates that many of the buildings and structures on the subject property were designed solely for processing sugar beets. Additionally, the improvements on the land, including 120 acres of ponds, 9 beet piling strips, and railroad track, together with a specialized building for loading sugar into railroad cars, are all uniquely designed for processing sugar beets. Second, both SMBSC’s and the county’s experts concluded that the property was limited market property, meaning that only a limited number of potential buyers would be interested in purchasing the property. Third, the evidence indicates that converting the property to another use would require a large investment and would result in a loss of value related to the special features in the property. For instance, the county’s expert testified that if the subject property were used for another purpose, the significant investment made in the ponds, piling strips, and tanks, bins, and silos would be lost. We hold that the tax court did not err in finding that the subject property was special purpose property.

III.

SMBSC next claims that the tax court erred when it decided to “rely solely on the cost approach” when valuing the subject property. S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop, 2006 WL 3803470, at *13. There are three basic approaches to determining the value of real estate:

(1) the market comparison approach, which is based on prices paid in actual market transactions involving comparable properties; (2) the cost approach, which is founded on the proposition that an informed buyer would pay no more for the property than the cost of constructing new property having the same utility as the subject property; and (3) the income approach, which is predicated on the capitalization of the income the property is expected to generate.

Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y v. County of Ramsey, 530 N.W.2d 544, 552 (Minn.1995). We have said that “[w]henever possible, appraisers should apply at least two approaches to market value because the alternative value indications derived can serve as useful checks on each other.” Id. at 553.

SMBSC’s expert appraiser relied on both the market comparison approach and the cost approach when he appraised the subject property. In the market comparison approach, 20 comparable sales were identified: 3 sales of beet sugar plants (the plants were in Hereford, TX, Moses Lake, WA, and Hamilton City, CA), 9 sales of “a range of agri- or food-processing facilities from the general region of the subject property,” 3 general industrial sales from outstate Minnesota, and 5 sales of operating beet sugar plants which were sold at the same time that the entire business as a “going concern” was sold. Under the market comparison approach, SMBSC’s expert concluded the market value of the subject property was $7.5 million.

SMBSC’s expert also conducted a cost approach appraisal. Of the 30 tanks, bins, and silos on the subject property, SMBSC’s cost approach appraisal included the entire value of two beet pellet silos, the “outer skin” of the Weibull bin, and one-half the value of the four sugar silos. SMBSC’s cost approach appraisal did not include the 14 thick juice tanks because the appraiser concluded they “are strictly process related and therefore not taxable as real estate.” The appraisal also did not include any of the remaining nine tanks, bins, and silos on the subject property. After accounting for depreciation, SMBSC’s expert concluded that based on a cost approach the market value of the subject property is $7,625 million.

The county’s expert used only a cost approach when valuing the property. He included all of the 31 buildings, the 30 disputed tanks, bins, and silos, and numerous improvements on the subject property in his appraisal, and, after subtracting for depreciation, he concluded the value of the subject property was $55 million.

As noted above, the tax court concluded that only the cost approach was appropriate in this case. In previous cases, we have held that it is not error for a court to rely exclusively on the cost approach when valuing special purpose property. Fed. Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 313 N.W.2d at 623-24; see also American Express Fin. Advisors, 573 N.W.2d at 657 (“In the narrow context of special purpose properties, we have generally permitted the use of a cost approach alone because, ‘[t]he very nature of special purpose property is such that market value cannot readily be determined by the existence of an actual market, and therefore other methods of valuation, such as reproduction cost, must be resorted to.’ ” (quoting In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 924 (Minn.1980))). Thus, the general rule in cases involving special purpose property is that because comparable sales are not available, a court may rely on the cost approach alone. But we have also said that a single valuation approach may be used only if the tax court “explain[s] the weaknesses of the rejected approaches.” Ferche Acquisitions, Inc. v. County of Benton, 550 N.W.2d 631, 633 n. 3 (Minn. 1996). And we have not ruled out the possibility that comparable sales evidence may exist for special purpose properties. See, e.g., Fed. Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 313 N.W.2d at 624 {“Usually, as in our case here, comparable sales are not available for a building that is a special use property.” (emphasis added)).

Here, SMBSC’s expert appraiser provided evidence of 20 “comparable” sales. The county elicited testimony from SMBSC’s expert appraiser and several other witnesses seeking to prove that the sales were not comparable for various reasons. The tax court may have concluded that the sales were not comparable, and therefore rejected the evidence, but the court made no findings or conclusions related to the evidence.

We conclude that the tax court’s failure to make any findings or conclusions related to SMBSC’s comparable sales evidence violated the tax court’s duty to “use its independent judgment in evaluating all testimony and evidence before the court.” McNeilus Truck & Mfg., 705 N.W.2d at 413. Because the court apparently concluded, based solely on the classification of the property as special purpose property, that it was appropriate to rely on the cost approach alone, and because the court did not make any findings or conclusions related to SMBSC’s “comparable” sales, we remand to the tax court to issue findings that reflect its consideration of the comparable sales evidence offered by SMBSC. Cf. id. at 415 (“[W]e remand to the tax court with instructions to consider all properly offered and admitted comparable sale evidence * * * and to evaluate in detail the expert evidence offered by both parties.”).

IV.

We turn next to the issue of valuation. SMBSC claims that the tax court erred when it affirmed the county’s assessed value. The tax court concluded that neither party presented sufficient evidence to enable it to value the subject property. The court therefore affirmed the county’s assessed value, explaining that it did so because the county’s assessment is prima facie valid. We defer to the tax court’s valuation decisions where they find reasonable support in the record evidence. Hansen v. County of Hennepin, 527 N.W.2d 89, 93 (Minn.1995). But when the tax court “completely fail[s] to explain its reasoning,” we have recognized that no deference is owed. Id

The county argues the tax court’s decision should be affirmed because the assessor’s valuation is presumed legal and SMBSC did not meet its burden to prove another value. SMBSC argues, on the other hand, that the presumed validity of the assessment is not relevant because SMBSC appeared for trial.

We have repeatedly recognized that the government’s assessment of real property taxes is prima facie valid. E.g., Schleiff v. County of Freeborn, 231 Minn. 389, 395-96, 43 N.W.2d 265, 269 (1950). The legislature has provided for this presumption. MinmStat. § 271.06, subd. 6 (2006) (“[T]he order of the commissioner or the appropriate unit of government in every case shall be prima facie valid.”); Minn. Stat. § 272.06 (2006) (providing that the assessment is “presumed to be legal until the contrary is affirmatively shown”). These two statutes create a presumption of validity for the county’s assessment in this case.

In this case, we are asked to determine the effect of the prima facie validity when the taxpayer appears for trial and presents evidence. The statute provides that if the taxpayer does not appear, “the Tax Court shall enter its order affirming the order of * * * the appropriate unit of government from which appeal was taken.” MinmStat. § 271.06, subd. 6; see also Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, 247 Minn. 6, 21, 76 N.W.2d 107, 117 (1956) (noting that “[i]f no appellant appears, the board must affirm” the order made by the governmental unit below). But if the taxpayer does appear, the case is to be tried de novo. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 247 Minn, at 21, 76 N.W.2d at 117. That the case is subject to a trial de novo, however, does not make the prima facie validity of the county’s assessment irrelevant. Rather, the presumptive validity of the county’s assessment remains, and the burden is on the party appealing that assessment to show that it is excessive. McCannel, 301 N.W.2d at 923 (“In a proceeding brought by a taxpayer to challenge a property valuation, there is a prima facie presumption that the assessor’s valuation is proper, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the assessment is excessive.”); Schleiff, 231 Minn, at 395-99, 43 N.W.2d at 269 (describing “the assessor’s valuation [as] prima facie valid” and noting that “the burden rest[s] upon the taxpayer to prove that it is excessive”). We have recognized this principle in several other cases. For example, in Stronge & Lightner Co. v. Comm’r of Taxation, we said that if a taxpayer appears and offers evidence, the tax court shall conduct a trial de novo. 228 Minn. 182, 194, 36 N.W.2d 800, 806-07 (1949). But we were also careful to note that the taxpayer has the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 195-96, 36 N.W.2d at 807; see also Crossroads Ctr. (Rochester), Inc., v. Comm’r of Taxation, 286 Minn. 440, 444, 176 N.W.2d 530, 534 (1970). More recently, we have specifically described the taxpayer’s burden when challenging an assessment of real estate taxes as the burden “to show that [the assessment] does not reflect the true market value of the property.” Gale v. County of Hennepin, 609 N.W.2d 887, 890 (Minn.2000).

Notwithstanding this authority, SMBSC contends that its appearance makes the prima facie validity of the assessment irrelevant and that the tax court therefore erred in upholding the county’s assessment. SMBSC cites Red Owl Stores, Inc. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 264 Minn. 1, 117 N.W.2d 401 (1962), in support of its argument. SMBSC’s reliance on Red Owl is misplaced. In Red Owl, we said that if the taxpayer appears “the case is tried de novo, which means that either party may introduce evidence and the decision of the [tax court] is therefore based upon all the evidence placed before it.” Id. at 5, 117 N.W.2d at 405. The taxpayer appeared in Red Owl, but we did not say that the taxpayer overcame the prima facie validity simply by appearing in court. Rather, we recognized, as we did in all of the authorities cited above, that “the good faith of tax assessment officers and the validity of their actions are presumed and the burden of proof of overcoming such presumption rests upon the complaining party.” Id. at 8,117 N.W.2d at 406.

This conclusion finds support in the very definition of “prima facie.” We have said that “ ⅛ prima facie case simply means one that prevails in the absence of evidence invalidating it.’ ” Tousignant v. St. Louis County, 615 N.W.2d 53, 59 (Minn.2000) (quoting Trudeau v. Sina Contracting Co., 241 Minn. 79, 87, 62 N.W.2d 492, 498 (1954)); see Black’s Law Dictionary 1228 (8th ed.2004) (defining “prima facie” as “[s]ufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”). From this definition it is evident that merely showing up will not defeat the prima facie validity of an assessment. Rather, as our cases make clear, in order to defeat the prima facie validity of the assessment, the taxpayer must offer evidence to invalidate the assessment.

In sum, we hold that SMBSC’s appearance for trial before the tax court does not make irrelevant the prima facie validity of the county’s assessment. The presumptive validity remains unless SMBSC met its burden to show that the assessment was invalid.

This conclusion does not end the analysis in this case, however, because SMBSC presented evidence during the trial and argued that the county’s assessment was invalid. If the taxpayer offers evidence to invalidate the assessment and meets its burden to show that the assessment does not reflect the true market value of the property, the tax court must determine the market value of the property. See McNeilus Truck & Mfg., 705 N.W.2d at 413. The tax court may still determine that the value of the property is equal to the estimated market value reflected in the assessment, but such a conclusion requires independent support in the record evidence. See Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 265 N.W.2d 825, 830 (Minn.1978) (“[The taxpayer’s] evidence was sufficient to rebut the state’s prima facie case, and the burden shifted to the state to present additional evidence to support the commissioner’s valuation.”); Xerox Corp. v. County of Hennepin, 309 Minn. 239, 245, 244 N.W.2d 135, 138 (1976) (noting that “additional testimony or evidence would be required to support the trial court’s findings upholding the assessed value” where evidence offered by the taxpayer “rebuts the prima facie validity of the assessed value”); Schleiff, 231 Minn, at 398, 43 N.W.2d at 270 (finding that expert testimony offered by county provided “a sound basis” for the trial court’s decision to value the property at the assessed value).

Here, the tax court appears to have used the wrong standard in evaluating the evidence before it. The court did not find that SMBSC did not meet its burden to show that the assessed value did not reflect the true market value of the subject property. Nor did it find that independent evidence in the record supports the county’s assessed value. Indeed, the tax court refused to value the property. The court affirmed the county’s assessment after concluding that it could not reach a “well supported and reasonable determination as to the market value of the Subject Property” because SMBSC’s appraisal was missing “an analysis as to the other taxable components, such as the tanks, bins and silos and land improvements.” S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop, 2006 WL 3803470, at ⅜13-14.

But to meet its burden to overcome the presumed validity of the county’s estimated market value, SMBSC need not necessarily put forth evidence that would allow the tax court to determine the market value of the subject property. Rather, SMBSC need only put forth evidence to show that the county’s assessed value “does not reflect the true market value of the property.” Gale, 609 N.W.2d at 890; see Xerox Corp., 309 Minn, at 246, 244 N.W.2d at 138 (finding that the taxpayer had met its burden to overcome the presumption). SMBSC might meet this burden by, for example, presenting evidence of truly comparable sales that the county had not considered or showing that the county taxed property that is not taxable.

For these reasons, we remand this case to the tax court to determine whether SMBSC has met its burden to show that the county’s assessment did not reflect the true market value of the property. If SMBSC has not met its burden, the court’s order should explain why that is the case, see McNeilus Truck & Mfg., 705 N.W.2d at 414, and the court should affirm the county’s assessment. See State v. Fridley Recreation & Serv. Co., 288 Minn. 218, 221, 179 N.W.2d 172, 174 (1970) (“[T]he taxpayer has failed to carry the burden of proving that the assessments were in fact excessive, [and] the trial court was fully justified in adopting the determinations of the assessor.”). If the court concludes that SMBSC has met its burden, then the court cannot affirm the assessed value unless there is independent support for it in the record. If there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the county’s assessment, the court must determine for itself the market value of the subject property. See McNeilus Truck & Mfg., 705 N.W.2d at 413 (noting that the tax court has a duty “to assess property at market value”); see also Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 1 (2006) (“[A]ll property shall be valued at its market value.”). If the court cannot determine the true market value of the property from the evidence in the record, then the court must reopen the record for additional evidence so that it can determine the actual value of the property. See Xerox Corp., 309 Minn, at 245-46, 244 N.W.2d at 138 (concluding that the taxpayer had met its burden to overcome the prima facie validity of the assessment and remanding to the tax court to determine the market value of the property); Minn. R. 8610.0120, subp. 2 (2005) (“If, after the holding of any hearings in any matter, the tax court finds the rights of the parties will be better served by the holding of a further hearing in the matter, the court may order a further hearing * ⅜ *

V.

The final issue we address is whether the tax court erred when it failed to grant SMBSC’s request for “sales ratio” or “unequal assessment” relief. “ ‘To determine whether a property has been unequally assessed,’ * * * ‘[the property’s] actual market value and real estate tax assessment must be compared with the market value and real estate tax assessments of other properties.’ ” Anacker v. County of Cottonwood, 302 N.W.2d 342, 345 (Minn.1981) (quoting United Nat’l Corp. v. County of Hennepin, 299 N.W.2d 73, 76 (Minn.1980)). Thus, a tax court faced with an unequal assessment claim must make two essential findings of fact: “[1] The actual market value of the property at the time of the assessment and [2] the percentage applied by the assessor to the market value on the property involved as compared with the percentage applied to other property in the assessment district, of the same class, in arriving at the full and true value for tax purposes.” Renneke, 255 Minn, at 248, 97 N.W.2d at 380. The burden is on the taxpayer to prove that its property has been subject to unequal assessment. In re Objection to Real Property Taxes, 353 N.W.2d 525, 530 (Minn.1984).

The tax court concluded that there was an “insufficient basis” to grant sales ratio relief because the court affirmed “the assessor’s estimated market value * * * based upon it being prima facie valid rather than based upon affirming evidence.” S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop, 2006 WL 3803470, at *14. Because we are remanding on the issue of the market value of the subject property, we also remand on this issue. If the tax court determines that SMBSC met its burden to show that the assessment did not reflect the true market value of the property and the court determines the actual market value of the subject property, the court must address SMBSC’s unequal assessment claim. If the court determines that SMBSC has not met its burden or if the court affirms the county’s assessment based on evidentiary support, then the tax court still must address the unequal assessment claim. In that instance, the court should proceed as if the property’s actual market value is the estimated market value reflected in the assessment and determine whether SMBSC has met its burden to prove the property has been unequally assessed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

HANSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

      . As explained in the record, the process of making sugar from sugar beets at the plant starts with the gathering, washing, and slicing of the beets. Next, through a process of diffusion and carbonation, "thin juice" is extracted from the sliced beets. The thin juice is pumped through evaporators, yielding "thick juice.” The thick juice is then typically stored in "thick juice tanks” until it is ultimately refined into sugar. Finally, the sugar is subjected to conditioning to remove excess moisture, which is done in sugar silos or in the "Weibull bin.”

      . On appeal, SMBSC has not argued that the improvements on the property (such as the ponds) are not taxable real property. We therefore do not address that question.

      . SMBSC and amicus curiae the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (the chamber) argue that Minn.Stat. § 272.03, subd. l(c)(iii) is ambiguous. We disagree. The portion of the statute at issue here involves common terms such as wall, roof, ceiling, and floor. These terms are not ambiguous. But even if we were to find that the statute was ambiguous, the legislative history to which the amicus brief draws our attention would not lead us to conclude that the tax court erred. This legislative history is, at best, unclear about exactly what the legislature intended when it enacted subdivision l(c)(iii). Finally, we reject SMBSC's and the chamber's interpretation of the exception in subdivision l(c)(iii) to the exclusion in subdivision l(c)(i) because it has the consequence of broadly construing the exclusion from taxation in subdivision l(c)(i). See ILHC of Eagan, 693 N.W.2d at 419 (noting that statutory provisions that exempt property from taxation should be strictly construed). SMBSC's and the chamber’s statutory interpretation argument is, in essence, a debate over the wisdom of subdivision l(c)(iii). This debate should be waged at the legislature, not in the judicial branch. See, e.g., In re McCannel, 301 N.W.2d 910, 918 (Minn.1980) (noting "that the wisdom and social effects of [tax provisions] lie within the responsibility of the legislatures, not the courts”).

      . SMBSC also suggests that the tax court erred in excluding an expert it proffered in rebuttal. This evidentiary issue has not been properly preserved for review. Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. County of Hennepin, 576 N.W.2d 445, 447 n. 1 (Minn. 1998). But even if we were to examine the question, SMBSC’s argument is without merit. The tax court noted that the testimony at issue would have been duplicative of testimony already in evidence from SMBSC’s first expert. The tax court's exclusion of repetitive evidence is not error. See Minn. R. Evid. 403 (noting that cumulative evidence may be excluded).
      Finally, SMBSC argues that the tax court erred as matter of law when it concluded that the 30 tanks, bins, and silos, "exclusive of equipment contained therein,” are taxable property under the statute. In particular, SMBSC argues that the tax court’s use of the phrase "exclusive of equipment contained therein” rather than the phrase "exterior shell” was erroneous. Although we agree that it would have been preferable for the tax court to use the statutory language, these phrases are not materially different in the context of this case.

      . The court apparently addressed this issue because it believed that if it determined that the subject property is special purpose property, then it need not conduct a comparable sales analysis as part of the valuation inquiry. See S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop, 2006 WL 3803470, at *13 ("When valuing a special purpose property, it is appropriate to rely solely on the cost approach to value.”).

      . It appears that after the tax court defined the "real property” for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 272.03, it considered all the property that qualified as "real property” under section 272.03 (the land, the buildings, and the exteri- or shells of the 30 tanks, bins and silos) to determine whether the subject property is special purpose property. Although SMBSC argues that "[t]his Court has never used nontaxable production equipment to determine whether a building is a special purpose property,” SMBSC has not argued that if the exterior shells of the tanks, bins, and silos at issue are taxable real property, as we have determined above, then the tanks, bins, and silos should not be considered when making the special purpose property determination. We conclude that the tax court appropriately considered all of the property that it determined to be real property under section 272.03 when deciding whether the subject property was special purpose property.

      . SMBSC also argues that the tax court erred when it found that the highest and best use of the subject property was a sugar beet processing plant. Because we conclude that the tax court's determination that the property is special purpose property is not clearly erroneous, we also conclude that the tax court did not clearly err when it made the highest and best use determination. See, e.g., The Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 326 (12th ed.2001) (stating that because there are limited uses for a special-purpose property, "[t]he highest and best use of a special-purpose property as improved is probably the continuation of its current use if that use remains viable”).

      . The expert concluded the "going concern” sales could not "provide a reliable finite indication of fee simple real estate value” and therefore did not use them in his analysis.

      . SMB SC's expert did not use this figure in his final determination of market value. Instead, he noted only that the estimate of $7,625 million was "supportive of the sales comparison conclusion! 1” that the value of the property was $7.5 million.

      . In addition to arguing that the tax court erred when it relied solely on the cost approach to value, SMBSC argues that the tax court erred when it rejected SMBSC’s cost approach estimate of market value. We conclude, however, that the evidence supports the tax court's decision to reject SMBSC’s estimated market value based on the cost approach because SMBSC’s expert failed to include all of the taxable real property in its estimate. For instance, SMBSC’s appraisal did not include the exterior shell of the 14 thick juice tanks or the two molasses tanks, which we have held above the tax court properly determined to be taxable.

      . Section 271.06 is located in the chapter related to the tax court generally and section 272.06 is located in the chapter dedicated specifically to property taxes. In this case— which involves a taxpayer’s appeal to the tax court of the county’s property tax assessment — the statutes operate in the same way to give prima facie validity to the county’s assessment. Cf. Buettner v. City of St. Cloud, 277 N.W.2d 199, 204 (Minn. 1979) (construing "presumption of validity" as operating the same as "a prima facie case”).

      . It is apparently common practice for the tax court to "default’' to the estimated market value reflected in the county's assessment, based on the statutory presumption that it is valid, rather than on evidence that supports the county's assessment when the court has rejected each party’s expert appraisal. See, e.g., Lowertown Five Ltd. P’ship v. County of Ramsey, No. C7-01-1964, 2002 WL 1453736, at *4 (Minn. T.C. June 26, 2002) ("The assessor’s estimated market value is prima facie correct. In this case neither party was able to overcome that presumption. Consequently, we have little alternative but to affirm the assessor’s estimated value.’’ (citation omitted)). The county argues that this court has approved of this practice in prior decisions, but we have been unable to find any case law that supports the county’s argument.

      . For example, SMBSC introduced the county’s property record and appraisal card concerning the subject property as evidence. The property record and appraisal card indicates that the county's assessment included at least one item, “E & W Pulp Bins,” that is not mentioned anywhere in the tax court's order. At oral argument the county contended that the E & W Pulp Bins were the disputed storage bins the tax court found to be taxable, but the square footage used to describe the E & W Pulp Bins on the appraisal card does not match the square footage used to describe the storage bins the tax court found were taxable. Because the tax court did not determine whether the E & W Pulp Bins are taxable real property (or were otherwise the same as the storage bins), we cannot determine whether SMBSC introduced evidence indicating that the county taxed property that is not taxable real property under Minn.Stat. § 272.03. In addition, the property record and appraisal card do not indicate whether the county in-eluded the entire value of the 30 disputed tanks, silos, and bins in the assessment, or whether only the exterior shell was included, as required by the statute. See Minn.Stat. § 272.03, subd. l(c)(iii). If the tax court could determine from the property record and appraisal card that the assessment included more than just the exterior shell of those structures, then SMBSC would have met its burden to show that the assessment did not reflect the true market value of the property.

      . In other words, if the taxpayer meets its burden to show that the assessment does not reflect the true market value of the property, the court cannot affirm the county’s assessment simply because it is presumed valid; rather, if the court affirms the county’s assessment, it must be because the evidence indicates that the county's assessment reflects the actual market value of the property, and the tax court should so explain.