Cited by

(applying Strickland to an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a juvenile-protection appeal).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, father must show that (1) his counsel’s performance 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, 694 (1984)).

To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, mother must demonstrate that (1) her counsel’s performance 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, 694 (1984)).

Servs., (noting that Strickland analysis applies in a civil-commitment context), aff’d on other grounds, (applying Strickland in a juvenile-delinquency context).

Servs., (“If a person claims that he was denied [a] statutory right to counsel, this court analyzes the claim by borrowing the [Strickland] analytical framework ordinarily used in criminal cases when applying the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.”); (applying Strickland standard in juvenile delinquency context).

of M.A.K., WL 3462103, at *9 (Minn. App. June 27, 2016) ( (applying Strickland in juvenile-delinquency context); 4 Beaulieu v. Minn. Dep’t of Hum.

To succeed on an ineffective-assistance-of- counsel claim, father “must show that [1] trial counsel was not reasonably effective and [2] that there is a 18 reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (quotation omitted) (appeal from adjudication of delinquency).

(applying Strickland in juvenile-delinquency context); see also Beaulieu v. Minn. Dep’t of Hum .

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

(applying Strickland in juvenile-delinquency context); see also Beaulieu v. Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs.

See, (applying Strickland in juvenile-delinquency context); see also Beaulieu v. Minn. 10 Dep’t of Human Servs.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the complainant must show that trial counsel was not reasonably effective 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).

See, (applying Strickland in juvenile-delinquency context); see also Beaulieu v. Minn. Dep’t of Human Servs., (applying Strickland in civil-commitment context), aff’d

(citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068 (1984)); (applying the Strickland standard in juvenile-court proceedings).

(analyzing appellant’s claim that he was denied fair trial because, among other things, 8 “his court-appointed counsel was ineffective”).

A complainant must show that “trial counsel was not reasonably effective 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, 566 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984)).

(applying same standard in juvenile matters).

(finding that where “the record contains overwhelming evidence against [appellant,] [t]here is no reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different had [the appellant] been represented by a different attorney”)., Fe-dor only argues that counsel failed to investigat

(explaining that the failure to make statutorily required written findings warrants reversal); -51 (Minn.App.1987) (observing that four single sentence findings with little elaboration insufficient); (stating insufficient written findings constitutes reversible error even though record indicates court considered options and had good reasons for its choice).

In re Welfare of L.B., Jr.