barred by the Knaffla rule: ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the prosecutor’s violation of discovery rules, and his claim that he was denied a fair trial. Sessions implicitly acknowledges that these three issues indeed were known and not raised during his direct appeal. However, Sessions attempts to invoke the “interests of justice” exception. He argues that his failure to raise these issues was not “deliberate and inexcusable” and that but for his attorney’s advice, he would have raised those issues in his direct appeal. None of Sessions’ three claims about his trial fit into the “interests of justice” exception to Knaffla. Sessions’ claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is not the type granted under the “interests of justice” exception. See Ives, 655 N.W.2d at 636 (<HOLDING>). Sessions’ claim about the prosecution
holding that ives claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel did not fit within the interests of justice exception recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record