Cited by

(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(holding that appellate counsel’s failure to forego appellant’s direct appeal and pursue postconviction relief was not ineffective assistance of counsel because both Strickland prongs were not met).

“When an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the [petitioner] must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.”

“When an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the [petitioner] must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.” d 465, 468 (Minn. 2007) (citation omitted).

Under the Strickland test Davis had to show, first, “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687–88 (internal quotation marks omitted)).

“When an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the [petitioner] must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.”

2 T o establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must show that: (1) “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness ”; and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel ’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Fields v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687- 88 (1984)).

“When an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the appellant must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.”

Rhodes, d at 842; (applying Strickland to ineffective-appellate -counsel claims).

“When an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the appellant must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.”

having the same counsel “at trial and on appeal prevented him from truly presenting his ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal.” “When an 8 ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the appellant must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.” Fields v. State

Additionally, there is a strong presumption that appellate counsel’s judgment about which issues to raise “falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” ( quotation omitted).

“When an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’ s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the [petitioner] must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.” Evans, d at 45 (alteration in original) (quoting Fields v. State , ).

If a claim fails to satisfy one of the Strickland requirements, we need not consider the other requirement.” ; (applying Strickland).

To show ineffective assistance of counsel, Eason must demonstrate “that ‘counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’ ” and “that ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’ s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Fields v. State , (quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687–88).

“When an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the [petitioner] must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.”

Additionally, there is a strong presumption that appellate counsel’s judgment about which issues to raise “falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Fields v. State , (quotations omitted).

Fields v. State , (requiring bo th prongs to be met for a claim to be successful).

But, to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate 5 counsel, Calhoun must show “that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and “that ‘there is a reasonable probability that , but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” ( quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

“When an 9 ineffective assistance of appellate counsel c laim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the [petitioner] must first show that trial counsel was ineffective .” Fields v. State

First, the defendant must demonstrate that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88; 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)).

“When an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s fa ilure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the appella nt must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.”

(requiring appellant to “first show that trial counsel was ineffective” before prevailing on merits against appellate counsel).

(“When an ineffective as sistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the appellant must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.”).

(“[B]ecause we conclude that all of Fields’ ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims fail, we also conclude that all of Fields’ ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims fail.”).Trial counsel is ineffective if her representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a

Ineffective-assistance- of-counsel claims are analyzed using “the two-prong test articulated in Strickland v. Washington.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are analyzed using “the two-prong test articulated in Strickland.” see also Strickland v. Washington, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim, Bakdash must demonstrate that his appellate counsel’s representation “‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’” and that “‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s 5 unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2065, 2068 (1984)).

But to establish that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, “the appellant must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.” (“Sullivan’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is predicated on the underlying claim against his trial counsel.

But “[w]hen an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, the appellant must first show that trial counsel was ineffective.”