ineffective assistance claim in Idaho

2026Because trial counsel did not render deficient performance for declining to assert the abrasions were caused by shaving, we do not need to analyze the prejudice prong of Strickland. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2023Gentry v. Sinclair, 705 F.3d 884, 906 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding an ineffective assistance claim for failure to investigate and discover the same impeachment information underlying Gentry’s Brady claims failed for lack of prejudice when the same information was not material under Brady); Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 53 (3d Cir. 2002) (“The standard for materiality [under Brady] is the same as that iterated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).”).

2023See Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 363 , 924 P.2d 622, 625 (Ct. App. 1996).

2023See Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 363 , 924 P.2d 622, 625 (Ct. App. 1996).

2023Dunlap v. State, 159 Idaho 280, 297 , 360 P.3d 289, 306 (2015). “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Id.

2023Dunlap v. State, 159 Idaho 280, 297 , 360 P.3d 289, 306 (2015). “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Id.

2023“An ineffective assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to present evidence cannot satisfy the deficient performance or resulting prejudice prongs without providing the substance of the potential testimony or other admissible evidence of facts counsel should have discovered and presented.” Knutsen, 144 Idaho at 443 , 163 P.3d at 232 .

2023“An ineffective assistance claim based on counsel’s failure to present evidence cannot satisfy the deficient performance or resulting prejudice prongs without providing the substance of the potential testimony or other admissible evidence of facts counsel should have discovered and presented.” Knutsen, 144 Idaho at 443 , 163 P.3d at 232 .

2019The United States Supreme Court has stated that when an ineffective assistance claim is based on failure to raise an issue on appeal, that only "when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome." *870 Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 , 288, 120 S.Ct. 746 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) (citation omitted).

2019The United States Supreme Court has stated that when an ineffective assistance claim is based on failure to raise an issue on appeal, that only “when ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented, will the presumption of effective assistance of counsel be overcome.” Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 (2000) (citation omitted).

2023See Hall, 163 Idaho at 816, 419 P.3d at 1114 .

2023Gentry v. Sinclair, 705 F.3d 884, 906 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding an ineffective assistance claim for failure to investigate and discover the same impeachment information underlying Gentry’s Brady claims failed for lack of prejudice when the same information was not material under Brady); Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 53 (3d Cir. 2002) (“The standard for materiality [under Brady] is the same as that iterated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).”).

2023Gentry v. Sinclair, 705 F.3d 884, 906 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding an ineffective assistance claim for failure to investigate and discover the same impeachment information underlying Gentry’s Brady claims failed for lack of prejudice when the same information was not material under Brady); Marshall v. Hendricks, 307 F.3d 36, 53 (3d Cir. 2002) (“The standard for materiality [under Brady] is the same as that iterated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984).”).

2020See, e.g., Guzman, 126 Idaho at 371 , 883 P.2d at 729 (analyzing conflict of interest from joint representation).

2020See, e.g., Guzman, 126 Idaho at 371 , 883 P.2d at 729 (analyzing conflict of interest from joint representation).

2015Compare Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, - -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1409-10 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557, 581-83 (2011) (evidence introduced during a collateral proceeding on an ineffective assistance claim that “largely duplicated the mitigation evidence at trial” did not satisfy a showing of prejudice under Strickland), and Cunningham v. Wong, 704 F.3d 1143 , 1161— 63 (9th Cir.2013) (recognizing the cumulative nature of the “new” evidence presented and holding petitioner failed to demonstrate Strickland prejudice), with Foust v. Houk, 655 F.3d 524, 539 (6th Cir.2011) (where the new evidence, “[f]ar from being

2015Compare Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, - -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1409-10 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557, 581-83 (2011) (evidence introduced during a collateral proceeding on an ineffective assistance claim that “largely duplicated the mitigation evidence at trial” did not satisfy a showing of prejudice under Strickland), and Cunningham v. Wong, 704 F.3d 1143 , 1161— 63 (9th Cir.2013) (recognizing the cumulative nature of the “new” evidence presented and holding petitioner failed to demonstrate Strickland prejudice), with Foust v. Houk, 655 F.3d 524, 539 (6th Cir.2011) (where the new evidence, “[f]ar from being

2015See, e.g., Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 , 127 S.W.3d 486, 502 (2003) (“This court will not label counsel ineffective merely because of possible bad tactics or strategy in selecting a jury.”); People v. Reese, 121 Ill.App.3d 977 , 77 Ill.Dec. 390 , 460 N.E.2d 446, 451 (1984) (the review of counsel’s performance in an ineffective assistance claim does not extend to areas involving trial tactics or strategy, such as jury selection); *522 State v. Adams, 156 N.C.App. 318 , 576 S.E.2d 377, 382 (2003) (“[Tjrial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in matters involving strategic and tactical

2015See, e.g., Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 , 127 S.W.3d 486, 502 (2003) (“This court will not label counsel ineffective merely because of possible bad tactics or strategy in selecting a jury.”); People v. Reese, 121 Ill.App.3d 977 , 77 Ill.Dec. 390 , 460 N.E.2d 446, 451 (1984) (the review of counsel’s performance in an ineffective assistance claim does not extend to areas involving trial tactics or strategy, such as jury selection); *522 State v. Adams, 156 N.C.App. 318 , 576 S.E.2d 377, 382 (2003) (“[Tjrial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in matters involving strategic and tactical

2015See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 3 .The district court treated the claim of new evidence as an actual innocence claim, furthermore, it appears from the order summarily dismissing the first successive petition that counsel conceded that the ineffective assistance of defense counsel claim was not a ground for relief, but was offered as sufficient reason for permitting the claims in the successive petition. 4 .

2015See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 3 .The district court treated the claim of new evidence as an actual innocence claim, furthermore, it appears from the order summarily dismissing the first successive petition that counsel conceded that the ineffective assistance of defense counsel claim was not a ground for relief, but was offered as sufficient reason for permitting the claims in the successive petition. 4 .

2015See, e.g., Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 , 127 S.W.3d 486, 502 (2003) (“This court will not label counsel ineffective merely because of possible bad tactics or strategy in selecting a jury.”); People v. Reese, 121 Ill.App.3d 977 , 77 Ill.Dec. 390 , 460 N.E.2d 446, 451 (1984) (the review of counsel’s performance in an ineffective assistance claim does not extend to areas involving trial tactics or strategy, such as jury selection); *522 State v. Adams, 156 N.C.App. 318 , 576 S.E.2d 377, 382 (2003) (“[Tjrial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in matters involving strategic and tactical

2015See, e.g., Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 , 127 S.W.3d 486, 502 (2003) (“This court will not label counsel ineffective merely because of possible bad tactics or strategy in selecting a jury.”); People v. Reese, 121 Ill.App.3d 977 , 77 Ill.Dec. 390 , 460 N.E.2d 446, 451 (1984) (the review of counsel’s performance in an ineffective assistance claim does not extend to areas involving trial tactics or strategy, such as jury selection); *522 State v. Adams, 156 N.C.App. 318 , 576 S.E.2d 377, 382 (2003) (“[Tjrial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in matters involving strategic and tactical

2015Compare Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, - -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1409-10 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557, 581-83 (2011) (evidence introduced during a collateral proceeding on an ineffective assistance claim that “largely duplicated the mitigation evidence at trial” did not satisfy a showing of prejudice under Strickland), and Cunningham v. Wong, 704 F.3d 1143 , 1161— 63 (9th Cir.2013) (recognizing the cumulative nature of the “new” evidence presented and holding petitioner failed to demonstrate Strickland prejudice), with Foust v. Houk, 655 F.3d 524, 539 (6th Cir.2011) (where the new evidence, “[f]ar from being

2015See, e.g., Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 , 127 S.W.3d 486, 502 (2003) (“This court will not label counsel ineffective merely because of possible bad tactics or strategy in selecting a jury.”); People v. Reese, 121 Ill.App.3d 977 , 77 Ill.Dec. 390 , 460 N.E.2d 446, 451 (1984) (the review of counsel’s performance in an ineffective assistance claim does not extend to areas involving trial tactics or strategy, such as jury selection); *522 State v. Adams, 156 N.C.App. 318 , 576 S.E.2d 377, 382 (2003) (“[Tjrial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in matters involving strategic and tactical

2015See, e.g., Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 , 127 S.W.3d 486, 502 (2003) (“This court will not label counsel ineffective merely because of possible bad tactics or strategy in selecting a jury.”); People v. Reese, 121 Ill.App.3d 977 , 77 Ill.Dec. 390 , 460 N.E.2d 446, 451 (1984) (the review of counsel’s performance in an ineffective assistance claim does not extend to areas involving trial tactics or strategy, such as jury selection); *522 State v. Adams, 156 N.C.App. 318 , 576 S.E.2d 377, 382 (2003) (“[Tjrial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in matters involving strategic and tactical

2015Compare Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. -, - -, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1409-10 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557, 581-83 (2011) (evidence introduced during a collateral proceeding on an ineffective assistance claim that “largely duplicated the mitigation evidence at trial” did not satisfy a showing of prejudice under Strickland), and Cunningham v. Wong, 704 F.3d 1143 , 1161— 63 (9th Cir.2013) (recognizing the cumulative nature of the “new” evidence presented and holding petitioner failed to demonstrate Strickland prejudice), with Foust v. Houk, 655 F.3d 524, 539 (6th Cir.2011) (where the new evidence, “[f]ar from being

2015See, e.g., Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 , 127 S.W.3d 486, 502 (2003) (“This court will not label counsel ineffective merely because of possible bad tactics or strategy in selecting a jury.”); People v. Reese, 121 Ill.App.3d 977 , 77 Ill.Dec. 390 , 460 N.E.2d 446, 451 (1984) (the review of counsel’s performance in an ineffective assistance claim does not extend to areas involving trial tactics or strategy, such as jury selection); *522 State v. Adams, 156 N.C.App. 318 , 576 S.E.2d 377, 382 (2003) (“[Tjrial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in matters involving strategic and tactical

2015See, e.g., Echols v. State, 354 Ark. 530 , 127 S.W.3d 486, 502 (2003) (“This court will not label counsel ineffective merely because of possible bad tactics or strategy in selecting a jury.”); People v. Reese, 121 Ill.App.3d 977 , 77 Ill.Dec. 390 , 460 N.E.2d 446, 451 (1984) (the review of counsel’s performance in an ineffective assistance claim does not extend to areas involving trial tactics or strategy, such as jury selection); *522 State v. Adams, 156 N.C.App. 318 , 576 S.E.2d 377, 382 (2003) (“[Tjrial counsel are necessarily given wide latitude in matters involving strategic and tactical

2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t

2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t

2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t

2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t

2008See, e.g., State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 912 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1219 (1995); Aragon, 114 Idaho at 764 , 760 P.2d at 1180 ; Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370 , 924 P.2d 622, 632 (Ct.App.1996); see also Rega v. United States, 263 F.3d 18 (2nd Cir.2001) (comparing defendant’s proffered testimony with evidence adduced at trial and declaring that it would not have altered the outcome); United States v. Willis, 273 F.3d 592, 598-99 (5th Cir.2001) (analyzing whether result would have been different if defendant had testified despite counsel’s erroneous advice); Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570, 577 (9t

2007See Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370-71 , 924 P.2d 622, 632-33 (Ct.App.1996); Lake v. State, 126 Idaho 333, 336 , 882 P.2d 988, 991 (Ct.App.1994); Fox v. State, 125 Idaho 672, 675 , 873 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct.App.1994).

2007See Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370-71 , 924 P.2d 622, 632-33 (Ct.App.1996); Lake v. State, 126 Idaho 333, 336 , 882 P.2d 988, 991 (Ct.App.1994); Fox v. State, 125 Idaho 672, 675 , 873 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct.App.1994).

2007See Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370-71 , 924 P.2d 622, 632-33 (Ct.App.1996); Lake v. State, 126 Idaho 333, 336 , 882 P.2d 988, 991 (Ct.App.1994); Fox v. State, 125 Idaho 672, 675 , 873 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct.App.1994).

2007See Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 370-71 , 924 P.2d 622, 632-33 (Ct.App.1996); Lake v. State, 126 Idaho 333, 336 , 882 P.2d 988, 991 (Ct.App.1994); Fox v. State, 125 Idaho 672, 675 , 873 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct.App.1994).

1999See, e.g., State v. Aspeytia, 130 Idaho 12 , 936 P.2d 210 (Ct.App.1997) (Ineffective assistance of counsel claims which hinge on trial counsel’s failure to make objections during trial may be addressed on direct appeal because the transcript provides a sufficient record to permit review.).

1999See, e.g., State v. Aspeytia, 130 Idaho 12 , 936 P.2d 210 (Ct.App.1997) (Ineffective assistance of counsel claims which hinge on trial counsel’s failure to make objections during trial may be addressed on direct appeal because the transcript provides a sufficient record to permit review.).