for posteon-viction relief on the basis of ineffectiveness of counsel. The state also implies that the logical extension of permitting a full hearing in a case such as this would be “monthly hearings [to] chart every [prisoner’s] psychological improvement during [his] period of incarceration.” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (1982) provides in part that “The court may summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner and may summarily deny a petition when, the issues raised therein have previously been decided by the Minnesota supreme court in the same case.” This statute is consistent with Standards Relating to Post-Conviction Remedies § 6.2 (Approved Draft 1968). Cases bearing on this include State v. Myers, 273 N.W.2d 656 (Minn.1978) (<HOLDING>); Thompson v. Wood, 272 N.W.2d 357 (Minn.1978)
holding that defendant could not raise in a  2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding holding that an ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel claim may be brought in a collateral proceeding under  2255 whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal holding that petitioner in posteonviction proceeding may not raise matter that he raised and which was decided against him on direct appeal holding in part that a convicted defendant is not entitled to raise in a posteonviction proceeding any matter which he raised on direct appeal or which he knew about but did not raise in his direct appeal