Cited by

“When defense counsel concedes the defendant’s guilt without consent, counsel’s performance is deficient and prejudice is presumed.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “apply a two-step analysis to ineffective-assistance claims involving an alleged unauthorized concession of guilt.” (applying two-step analysis).

“When defense counsel concedes the defendant’s guilt without consent, counsel’s performance is deficient and prejudice is presumed.” (quotation omitted).

When trial counsel concedes guilt without the defendant’s consent, counsel’s performance “is deficient,” “prejudice is presumed,” and “the defendant is entitled to a new trial, regardless of whether [they] would have been convicted without the admission.” (quotations omitted).

“When defense counsel concedes the defendant’s guilt without consent, counsel’s performance is deficient and prejudice is presumed.” (quotation omitted).

when the concession was an understandable strategy and the defendant was present, understood a concession was being made, but failed to object.” (quotation omitted).

d 453, 457 (Minn. 2017).

We apply a “two-step analysis to ineffective-assistance claims involving an alleged unauthorized concession of guilt.” State v. Luby

“To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that (1) ‘his attorney’ s performance fell below an object ive standard of reasonableness,’ and (2) ‘a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.’” State v. Luby , ( ).

See, (reversing conviction where defense counsel conceded defendant’s guilt during closing arguments); Dukes v. State , (remanding to the postconviction court for further proceedings to determine whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his co

“To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that (1) his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable 5 probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” (quotation omitted); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984).

Doing so is deemed ineffective assistance of counsel, and “prejudice is presumed.” d 453, 457 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., State v. Luby , -58 (Minn. 2017) (determining that admitting premeditation is a concession of guilt in a first -degree murder case); Prtine, d at 317 -18 (determining that admitting intent is a concession of guilt when discussing a lesser charge of second-degree murder).

ot reflect [ that he] either consented to or acquiesced in the concessions.” 6 Generally, “[t]o succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show that (1) his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Luby , (quotation omitted) ( citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 -88, 692, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2067

D E C I S I O N Generally, for a criminal defendant to succeed on an ineffective -assistance-of- counsel claim, the defendant must show that: (1) “his [or her] attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness[,]” and (2) “a reasonable probabil ity exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” () (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 692, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2067 (1984)).

d 453, 457 (Minn. 20 17).

“When defense counsel concedes the defe ndant’s guilt without consen t, counsel’s performance is deficient and prejudice is presumed.” (quotation om itted).