200 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 45 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025A. Deficient Performance To prevail on the first prong of the Strickland test, a defendant must show that “‘counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d at 128 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88 ). 2025A. Deficient Performance To prevail on the first prong of the Strickland test, a defendant must show that “‘counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d at 128 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88 ). | 8 | 84 |
State v. McFarlandgreen2 sentences2023To satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must show that their “counsel’s representation was deficient, i.e., it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all the circumstances.” State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35 , 899 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1995). 2023To satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must show that their “counsel’s representation was deficient, i.e., it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all the circumstances.” State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 334-35 , 899 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1995). | 5 | 17 |
State v. Bertrandgreen2 sentences2025A. Deficient Performance To prevail on the first prong of the Strickland test, a defendant must show that “‘counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d at 128 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88 ). 2025A. Deficient Performance To prevail on the first prong of the Strickland test, a defendant must show that “‘counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’” Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d at 128 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88 ). | 5 | 8 |
State v. Cienfuegosgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 25 P.3d 1011 (2001) (“Washington has adopted the Strickland test to determine whether a defendant had constitutionally sufficient representation.”); State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 34 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), (“To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test”). 13 No. 54468-7-II error standard for evaluating prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct claims where the claims implicate constitutional issues. 2021See, e.g., State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 25 P.3d 1011 (2001) (“Washington has adopted the Strickland test to determine whether a defendant had constitutionally sufficient representation.”); State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 34 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), (“To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test”). 13 No. 54468-7-II error standard for evaluating prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct claims where the claims implicate constitutional issues. | 3 | 14 |
State v. Cienfuegosgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 25 P.3d 1011 (2001) (“Washington has adopted the Strickland test to determine whether a defendant had constitutionally sufficient representation.”); State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 34 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), (“To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test”). 13 No. 54468-7-II error standard for evaluating prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct claims where the claims implicate constitutional issues. 2021See, e.g., State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 25 P.3d 1011 (2001) (“Washington has adopted the Strickland test to determine whether a defendant had constitutionally sufficient representation.”); State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 34 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), (“To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test”). 13 No. 54468-7-II error standard for evaluating prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct claims where the claims implicate constitutional issues. | 3 | 14 |
Sheldon Sanders v. John Ratelle, Warden Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the State of Californiagreen2 sentences2024Restraint of Brett, 142 Wn.2d 868, 873 , 16 P.3d 601 (2001) (quoting Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1456 (9th Cir.1994)). - 16 - No. 84222-6-I/17 Trevigne cites to Thomas, Maurice, and Brett in briefing, but offers no analysis of those cases and fails to even apply the first prong of the Strickland test to the alleged deficient conduct at issue. 2024Restraint of Brett, 142 Wn.2d 868, 873 , 16 P.3d 601 (2001) (quoting Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446, 1456 (9th Cir.1994)). - 16 - No. 84222-6-I/17 Trevigne cites to Thomas, Maurice, and Brett in briefing, but offers no analysis of those cases and fails to even apply the first prong of the Strickland test to the alleged deficient conduct at issue. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2024Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State 4 No. 85494-1-I/5 v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 225 , 743 P.2d 816 (1987) (adopting two-pronged Strickland test). 2024Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State 4 No. 85494-1-I/5 v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 225 , 743 P.2d 816 (1987) (adopting two-pronged Strickland test). | 2 | 19 |
State v. Arguellesgreen2 sentences1999Tavares, 100 F.3d 995 ; Flynn, 190 Wis.2d 31 , 527 N.W.2d 343 ; Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439 . 1999Tavares, 100 F.3d 995 ; Flynn, 190 Wis.2d 31 , 527 N.W.2d 343 ; Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Sardiniagreen2 sentences2024App. 533, 540 , 713 P.2d 122 (1986) (“we hold that the Strickland test should be applied by Washington courts to issues of ineffective assistance of counsel”). 2024App. 533, 540 , 713 P.2d 122 (1986) (“we hold that the Strickland test should be applied by Washington courts to issues of ineffective assistance of counsel”). | 2 | 3 |
| Padilla v. Kentuckygreen | 2 | 2 |
| Betty Lou Beets v. Wayne Scott, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Divisiongreen | 2 | 2 |
| In Re the Mental Health of K.G.F.green | 2 | 2 |
| In Re Commitment of Hutchinsongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Daniel Eugene Frazer v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Griergreen2 sentences2024Grier “reaffirm[ed] our adherence to Strickland” in adjudicating such claims, but nevertheless “reject[ed] Grier’s ineffective assistance claim under the Strickland standard.” Id. at 32 . 2024Grier “reaffirm[ed] our adherence to Strickland” in adjudicating such claims, but nevertheless “reject[ed] Grier’s ineffective assistance claim under the Strickland standard.” Id. at 32 . | 1 | 17 |
State v. Kyllogreen2 sentences2025To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must establish that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862 , 215 P.3d 177 (2009). 2025To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must establish that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862 , 215 P.3d 177 (2009). | 1 | 16 |
State v. Hendricksongreen2 sentences2008Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d at 77-78 . ¶42 Here, the first part of the Strickland test ends the inquiry, because the facts do not support Mr. Prado’s claim of deficiency. 2008Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d at 77-78 . ¶42 Here, the first part of the Strickland test ends the inquiry, because the facts do not support Mr. Prado’s claim of deficiency. | 1 | 11 |
State v. Griergreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 25 P.3d 1011 (2001) (“Washington has adopted the Strickland test to determine whether a defendant had constitutionally sufficient representation.”); State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 34 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), (“To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test”). 13 No. 54468-7-II error standard for evaluating prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct claims where the claims implicate constitutional issues. 2021See, e.g., State v. Cienfuegos, 144 Wn.2d 222, 226 , 25 P.3d 1011 (2001) (“Washington has adopted the Strickland test to determine whether a defendant had constitutionally sufficient representation.”); State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 34 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011), (“To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test”). 13 No. 54468-7-II error standard for evaluating prejudice in prosecutorial misconduct claims where the claims implicate constitutional issues. | 1 | 8 |
Hill v. Lockhartgreen2 sentences1987Ed. 2d 203 , 106 S. Ct. 366, 370 (1985) held the Strickland test applicable to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea process, i.e., the defendant deciding whether to plead guilty and accept a bargain or plead not guilty and proceed to trial. 1987Ed. 2d 203 , 106 S. Ct. 366, 370 (1985) held the Strickland test applicable to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea process, i.e., the defendant deciding whether to plead guilty and accept a bargain or plead not guilty and proceed to trial. | 1 | 6 |
| Florida v. Nixongreen | 1 | 2 |
| DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Witherspoongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Breitunggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jeffries
green
2 sentences2015See, jd. at 189-90; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to prove ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 418 , 717 P.2d 722 (1986) (adopting the Strickland test). 2015See, jd. at 189-90; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to prove ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice); State v. Jeffries, 105 Wn.2d 398, 418 , 717 P.2d 722 (1986) (adopting the Strickland test). | 10 | 1992–2026 |
State v. Kyllo
green
2 sentences2025To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must establish that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862 , 215 P.3d 177 (2009). 2025To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, the defendant must establish that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862 , 215 P.3d 177 (2009). | 8 | 2011–2025 |
State v. Tilton
green
2 sentences2026In briefing, Trinh quotes State v. Tilton, 149 Wn.2d 775, 784 , 72 P.3d 735 (2003), in his assertion that our State “Supreme Court has held ‘[f]ailure of defense counsel to present a diminished capacity defense where the facts support such a defense has been held to satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test.’” (Alteration in original.) He also offers State v. Fedoruk, 184 Wn. 2026In briefing, Trinh quotes State v. Tilton, 149 Wn.2d 775, 784 , 72 P.3d 735 (2003), in his assertion that our State “Supreme Court has held ‘[f]ailure of defense counsel to present a diminished capacity defense where the facts support such a defense has been held to satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test.’” (Alteration in original.) He also offers State v. Fedoruk, 184 Wn. | 7 | 2005–2026 |
State v. Hendrickson
green
2 sentences2008Hendrickson, 129 Wash.2d at 77-78 , 917 P.2d 563 . ¶ 42 Here, the first part of the Strickland test ends the inquiry, because the facts do not support Mr. Prado's claim of deficiency. 2008Hendrickson, 129 Wash.2d at 77-78 , 917 P.2d 563 . ¶ 42 Here, the first part of the Strickland test ends the inquiry, because the facts do not support Mr. Prado's claim of deficiency. | 7 | 2001–2016 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Crace
green
2 sentences2014Restraint of Croce, 174 Wn.2d 835, 847 , 280 P. 3d 1102 ( 2012) ( concluding that where petitioner fails one prong of the Strickland test the court need not consider the other). 2014Restraint of Croce, 174 Wn.2d 835, 847 , 280 P. 3d 1102 ( 2012) ( concluding that where petitioner fails one prong of the Strickland test the court need not consider the other). | 6 | 2014–2025 |
State v. Tilton
green
2 sentences2026In briefing, Trinh quotes State v. Tilton, 149 Wn.2d 775, 784 , 72 P.3d 735 (2003), in his assertion that our State “Supreme Court has held ‘[f]ailure of defense counsel to present a diminished capacity defense where the facts support such a defense has been held to satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test.’” (Alteration in original.) He also offers State v. Fedoruk, 184 Wn. 2026In briefing, Trinh quotes State v. Tilton, 149 Wn.2d 775, 784 , 72 P.3d 735 (2003), in his assertion that our State “Supreme Court has held ‘[f]ailure of defense counsel to present a diminished capacity defense where the facts support such a defense has been held to satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test.’” (Alteration in original.) He also offers State v. Fedoruk, 184 Wn. | 5 | 2005–2026 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Yates
green
2 sentences2023Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (known as the two-prong Strickland test); Yates, 177 Wn.2d at 35 . 2023Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (known as the two-prong Strickland test); Yates, 177 Wn.2d at 35 . | 5 | 2016–2024 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2014The only way to satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test on such a claim is to " prove that [ counsel] actually prevented [ the defendant] from testifying." Robinson, 138 Wn.2d at 766 ; see also State v. Borsheim, 140 Wn. 2014The only way to satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test on such a claim is to " prove that [ counsel] actually prevented [ the defendant] from testifying." Robinson, 138 Wn.2d at 766 ; see also State v. Borsheim, 140 Wn. | 5 | 2001–2015 |
United States v. Cronic
green
2 sentences2024Cronic discussed three circumstances where deficient performance of counsel constitutes structural error, and thus warrants reversal without conducting a full Strickland analysis. 9 Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658 . 2024Cronic discussed three circumstances where deficient performance of counsel constitutes structural error, and thus warrants reversal without conducting a full Strickland analysis. 9 Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658 . | 4 | 2013–2024 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2015State v. Robinson, 138 Wn.2d 753, 765-69 , 982 P.2d 590 (1999). 2015State v. Robinson, 138 Wn.2d 753, 765-69 , 982 P.2d 590 (1999). | 4 | 2001–2015 |
Matter of Personal Restraint of Rice
green
2 sentences2011But our examination of our Supreme Court's response to Rice's ineffective assistance of counsel claim shows that the court applied the Strickland standard; thus, Rice does not support the State's argument that a heightened showing of prejudice is necessary in the PRP context. 118 Wash.2d at 888-89, 828 P.2d 1086 ("No evidentiary hearing is required in a collateral proceeding if the defendant fails to allege facts establishing the kind of prejudice necessary to satisfy the Strickland test."). 2011But our examination of our Supreme Court's response to Rice's ineffective assistance of counsel claim shows that the court applied the Strickland standard; thus, Rice does not support the State's argument that a heightened showing of prejudice is necessary in the PRP context. 118 Wash.2d at 888-89, 828 P.2d 1086 ("No evidentiary hearing is required in a collateral proceeding if the defendant fails to allege facts establishing the kind of prejudice necessary to satisfy the Strickland test."). | 3 | 2011–2025 |
Harrington v. Richter
green
2 sentences2019Although this standard does not require a defendant to show that the action more likely than not altered the outcome, "[t]he likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 , 131 S. Ct. 770 , 178 L. 2019Although this standard does not require a defendant to show that the action more likely than not altered the outcome, "[t]he likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 , 131 S. Ct. 770 , 178 L. | 3 | 2016–2019 |
State v. McCollum
green
2 sentences2019State v. McCollum, 88 Wn. 2019State v. McCollum, 88 Wn. | 3 | 2000–2019 |
State v. Reichenbach
green
2 sentences2016Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d at 130 . 2016Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d at 130 . | 3 | 2008–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Sylvain
green
2 sentences2015Gentry, 179 Wn.2d at 625 ; cf Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 433-34 , 995 N.E.2d 760 (2013) (retaining the general Teague framework but declining to adopt the expanded definition of a "new" rule that was articulated after Teague). (b) Padilla significantly changed Washington law It is true that in most cases simply applying the ordinary Strickland test to new facts will announce neither new rules nor significant changes in the law. 2015Gentry, 179 Wn.2d at 625 ; cf Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 433-34 , 995 N.E.2d 760 (2013) (retaining the general Teague framework but declining to adopt the expanded definition of a "new" rule that was articulated after Teague). (b) Padilla significantly changed Washington law It is true that in most cases simply applying the ordinary Strickland test to new facts will announce neither new rules nor significant changes in the law. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Gentry
green
2 sentences2015Gentry, 179 Wn.2d at 625 ; cf Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 433-34 , 995 N.E.2d 760 (2013) (retaining the general Teague framework but declining to adopt the expanded definition of a "new" rule that was articulated after Teague). (b) Padilla significantly changed Washington law It is true that in most cases simply applying the ordinary Strickland test to new facts will announce neither new rules nor significant changes in the law. 2015Gentry, 179 Wn.2d at 625 ; cf Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 433-34 , 995 N.E.2d 760 (2013) (retaining the general Teague framework but declining to adopt the expanded definition of a "new" rule that was articulated after Teague). (b) Padilla significantly changed Washington law It is true that in most cases simply applying the ordinary Strickland test to new facts will announce neither new rules nor significant changes in the law. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Vazquez green | 2 | 2024–2025 |
| State v. Sandoval green | 2 | 2016–2024 |
| In Re The Detention Of Richard Hatfield green | 2 | 2017–2024 |
| Bell v. Cone green | 2 | 2015–2020 |
| Rivera v. United States green | 2 | 2016–2018 |
| State v. West neutral | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. West neutral | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re Elmore green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Elmore green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Garrett green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| Kimmelman v. Morrison green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| Mickens v. Taylor green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Reichenbach green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Greiff green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| Matter of Personal Restraint of Riley green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Greiff green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Meckelson green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Mendez red | 2 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Lord green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Bowerman green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Murphy neutral | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. McDonald green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. McDonald green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Holm green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.