Cited by

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)).

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

The defendant must affirmatively establish 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.” (quotations omitted).

To prevail on an ineffectiv e-assistance-of-counsel clai m, “[t]he defendant must affirmatively prove that his counsel’s repres entation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ and ‘that 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. 2 052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

“The defendant must affirmatively pr ove 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, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).

Trial counsel’s performance is presumed reasonable, and appellant bears the burden of proving both prongs of the Strickland test

Trial counsel’s performance is presumed reasonable, Schneider v. State , and appellant bears the burden of proving both prongs of the Strickland test

the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel , a defendant must prove first, “that counsel’s representation fell below an objec tive standard of reasonableness,” and second, “ that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068

A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)) (citation omitted).

Trial counsel’s performance is presumed reasonable, Schneider v. State , and appellant bears the burden of proving both prongs of the Strickland test

The defe ndant must prove: (1) “that 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, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).

To prevail on an ineffectiv e-assistance-of-counsel argument, a defendant “must affirmatively prove that his counsel’s repres entation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ and ‘that 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)).

A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 695, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

To succeed 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’ 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, 104 S. Ct. 2064, 2068 (1984)).

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064; d 558, 561 (Minn. 1987).

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

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

A reasonable probability of prejudice is a “probability sufficient to undermi ne confidence in the outcome.” Gates v. State

Gates v. State , (quotations omitted) , -44 (Minn. App. 1989).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument, a defendant must show that the “representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ and ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for coun sel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Gates v. State , (quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)).

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

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

Under the second prong of the Strickland test, a reasonable probability is “a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (quotation omitted).

To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, “[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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, “[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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)).

To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, “[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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

In order to receive a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel a “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.” (quotations omitted).

4 prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner “must affirmatively prove [1] that 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.’” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2064, 2068).

To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a 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.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068 (1984)).

(stating that 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).