Cited by

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove “(1) that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694).

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant “must prove: (1) that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984)).

- 94 (Minn. 2015) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984)).

-94 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984)).

The Strickland test requires the petitioner to show (1) that “counsel’s representation ‘fell b elow 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.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694).

To prevail on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Roybal must demonstrate “(1) that his 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 proceedin g would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)).

” Nissalke v. State , (quotation omitted) .

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, “appellant must prove (1) that his counsel’s 9 representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) there is reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been diff erent.” Nissalke v. State

To prevail on his ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim, McMorris must demonstrate “(1) that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984)).

“To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, an appellant must allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the two-prong test announced in Strickland.” d 88, 93 (Minn. 2105) (quotation omitted).

The post-conviction court reasoned that Rye failed to establish both requirements of his claim: first, that his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, second, “‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)).

See Nissalke v. State , (M inn.

ctiveness of his first postconviction counse l. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must establish that (1 ) the petitioner’s 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.” Nissalke v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

The Strickland test requires the petitioner to establish “(1) that his 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 resu lt of the proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. 668 at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 20 68).

must be brought on direct appeal or it is Knaffla-barred.”

An appellant must show: “(1) that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’; and (2) ‘there 8 is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors , the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Nissalke v. State , (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).

(noting that a reviewing court “may dispose of a clai m on one prong without considering the other”).

A petition must contain factual support and allege “more than argumentative assertions.” (quotation omitted).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Bellanger must show “(1) that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 66 8, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

Appellant must show “(1) that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068) .

To prevail on his ineffective -assistance-of-counsel claim, Melancon must demonstrate 9 “(1) that his 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 proceedin g would have been different.’” Nissalke v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

Nissalke v. State ( Nissalke II )

The Strickland test requires the petitioner to show (1) that “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.’” Nissalke v. State , 4 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)).

To prevail on an ineffective -assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant must show “(1) that his 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.’” Nissalke v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 6 68, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

See Nissalke v. State , (stating that a defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel’s errors); McDonough v.

To prevail on his claim, appellant must sh ow “(1) that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasona bleness’; and (2) ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Nissalke v. State , (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 10 4 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).

To es tablish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must prove: “(1) that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’; and (2) ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedi ng would have been different.’” Nissalke v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

The Strickland test requires the petitioner to show 6 (1) that “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 ha ve been different.’” Nissalke v. State , (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 10 4 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).

’” Nissalke v. State , ( quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 68 8, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 , 2068 (1984)).

To prevail on such a claim, a defendant must show “(1) that his 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

To prevail on such a claim, the defendant must show “(1) that his counse l’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’; and (2) ‘there is a reas onable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the pr oceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).

A defendant claiming he was denied the effective assistance of counsel must demonstrate “(1) that his counsel ’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’; and (2) ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but 6 for counsel’ s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Nissalke v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant must show “(1) that his couns el’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 pr oceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 6 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant must show “(1) that his couns el’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 pr oceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

To prevail on his ineffective-assistan ce-of-counsel claim, appellant must demonstrate “(1) that his counsel’s represen tation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’; and (2) ‘there is a reas onable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the pr oceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

“If a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought on direct appeal or it is Knaffla-barred.”

To prevail on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Ellis must demonstrate “(1) that his 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 proceedin g would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 703, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 20 72 (1984)).

(citing Strickland, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).