Cited by

94 n.4 (Minn. 2015) (concluding that "neither Knaffla exception applies, [so] we need not address the issue of whether the Knaffla exceptions survive the 2005 amendments to Minn. Stat. § 590.01 , subd.

(explaining the standard for an 11 ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim).

-94 (Minn. 2015) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 3 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

To prevail on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Torgesen 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 8 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 a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Hogan must demonstrate “(1) that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of 7 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)).

21 result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984)).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Ampah 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, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Williams must show “(1) that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; 3 and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotation omitted).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Olson 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, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Ranzy 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, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

(stating that for valid ineffective assistance of counsel claim, 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 woul

n.4 (Minn. 2015) (declining to address whether the Knaffla exceptions survive the 2005 amendments to Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd.

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Akis 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.” 6 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel require a party to 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 a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 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)).

See Colbert, d at 626-27 (explaining and applying Knaffla rule); (“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.”).

“If a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on the basis of the trial record, the claim must be brought 3 on direct appeal or it is Knaffla-barred.”

Ineffective assistance of counsel To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must demonstrate “(1) that [her] 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)).

C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Hoard 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, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

reh’g denied (May 20, 2015).

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)).