Cited by

In other words, “a defendant must show that counsel’s errors actually had an adverse effect.” (quotation omitted).

A reasonable probability means “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Leake v. State, 13 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that an appellate court “need not analyze both prongs if either one is determinative”).

The appellant bears the burden of proof, and we “need not analyze both prongs if either one is determinative.”

An objective standard of reasonableness is the level of “the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would employ under similar circumstances.”

The first Strickland prong—whether counsel’s performance fell below an 9 objective standard of reasonableness—is generally met if the attorney demonstrates a level of “customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

An objective standard of reasonableness is the level of “customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

An objective standard of reasonableness is the level of “customa ry skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” Leake v. State

(explaining that i f appellant fails to meet one prong of the analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel, the other need not be analyzed).

(quoting Leake v. State , ).

counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” Leake v. State , (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)) (other citations omitted).

To prevail on an ineffective -assistance-of-counsel claim, a petitioner must “demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness , and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.”

“A re asonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Leake v. State , (quotation omitted).

To preva il on such a claim, an appellant must “demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probab ility exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” d 5, 10 (Minn. 2009) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 −88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064 −65).

“A reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Leake v. State , (quotation omitted).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant “must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S. Ct. at 12 2064).

To prevail on such a claim, an appellant must “demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance fell be low an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” Leake v. State , (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064-65).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assi stance of counsel, an appellant must “demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performan ce fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probab ility exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.” d 5, 10 (Minn. 2009) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064-65).

Generally, in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a party must demonstrate that “counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and “a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.”

For Shelby to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective, he must show both that his “(1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective stan dard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that, but for his counsel’s unprofessional error, the outcome would have been different.”

Appellate courts “ need not analyze both prongs if either one is determinative .” Leake v. State

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984); ).

at 695, 104 S. Ct. at 2068-69

6 been different.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064–65 (1984)).

However, in the context of determining whether a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, the Minnesota Supreme Court has defined “reasonable probability” as “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quotation omitted).