Cited by

The second Strickland requirement requires “‘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).

(concluding that the defendant failed to satisfy his burden of proving a reasonable probability that, had certain records been obtained, the result of the trial would have been different because such a conclusion was based on “nothing more than speculation”); (stating that it is not proper to reverse a conviction on speculation that an investigation might have 7 found evidence that would have helped the defendant’s case).

To establish prejudice for purposes of the second Strickland prong, “the defendant must show that counsel’s errors ‘actually’ had an adverse effect in that but for the errors the result of the proceeding probably would have been different.” d 558, 562 (Minn. 1987) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693–94).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a petitioner 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, 688, 694 (1984)).

See Gates v. State , (stating that “the defendant must show that counsel’s errors ‘actually’ had an adverse effect in tha t but for the errors the result of the proceeding probably would have been different” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 -94)).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant “must affirmatively prove that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ 16 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, 694 (1984)).

The second requirement of Strickland requires “‘that 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).

U nder the prejudice prong, a “defendant must show that counsel ’s errors ‘actually’ had an adverse effect in that but for the errors the result of the proceeding probably would have been different.” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693).

rev. denied (Minn. June 16, 2020) ().

(adopting the two-part test described in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

Known as the Strickland prongs, these criteria of an ineffective -

A defendant receives ineffective assistance of coun sel when: (1) “counsel’s re presentation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness”; and (2) “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the re sult of the proceeding would have been different.” Gates v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984)).

But Campbell’s claim that impeaching records may have existed is purely speculative.3 And “it is not proper to reverse a conviction on speculation that an investigation might have found evidence that would have helped the defendant’s case.” Swaney v. State , (d 558, 563 (Minn. 1987)).

The party alleging ineffective assistance must show that representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” an d “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the re sult of the proceeding would have been different.” Gates v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 69 4, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

(holding that appellant had not demonstrated prejudice where he alleged that trial counsel should have investigated further to locate additional witnesses but did not show the existence of a witness whose testimony would have benefited him).

(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).

(citing Strickland and rejecting the view “that it was not necessary for the defendant to show actual prejudice”).

To prese nt a proper ineffective -assistance-of-counsel 6 claim, “[t]he defendant must affirmatively prove that his 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.” (quotation omitted).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a post-conviction petitioner “must affirmatively prove [1] t hat his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ and [2] ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Gates v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

that the two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel.”); –62 (Minn. 1987) (discussing the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel).

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

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)

In order to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the claimant must prove that his 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, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).

To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the claimant must affirmatively prove that his counsel’s representation (1) “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) “tha t 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, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).

See Gates v. State , (stating that reversal under Strickland standard cannot be based on speculation); (holding that, in a civil-commitment proceeding, speculation that attorney was under influence of controlled substances is not suffic

Gates v. State , , 562 (Minn. 1987).

See Gates v. State , , 563 (Minn. 1987) (stating that "it is not proper under Strickland to base a reversal on speculation").

In determining whether the defendant has made the requisite showing, the court must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury.” Gates v. State , (citation omitted).

To prevail on an ineffective -assistance-of-counsel claim, appellant “must affirmatively prove that his 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 differ ent.’” (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, appellant “must affirmatively prove that his 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.’” Gates v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984)).

The assistance of counsel was ineffective if 1) “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 re sult of the proceeding would have been different.’” Gates v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).