prejudice prong test in Indiana

2013Sims v. State, 771 N.E.2d 734, 741 (Ind .Ct.

2013Sims v. State, 771 N.E.2d 734, 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

2018The prejudice prong for the waiver-of-issues category of an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim requires an examination of whether the issues that appellate counsel failed to raise “‘would have been clearly more likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.’” Garrett, 992 N.E.2d at 724 (quoting Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 193 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied). [16] “Ineffective assistance is very rarely found in cases where a defendant asserts that appellate counsel failed to raise an issue on . . . appeal” because “the decision of what issues to raise i

2017See Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710, 724 (Ind. 2013) (explaining that the prejudice prong for the waiver of issues category of an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim requires an examination of whether the issues would have been clearly more likely to result in reversal or an order for new trial).

2018See also Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496, 501-07 (Ind. 2001) (discussing the Hill Court’s prejudice prong requirement, and setting forth a distinction between: (1) prejudice resulting from counsel’s failure to advise the defendant on an issue that impairs or overlooks a defense; and (2) prejudice resulting from an incorrect advisement of penal consequences). [19] We will not address the prejudice prong of Baker’s claim because he did not establish the first required prong of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim (i.e., showing that his counsels’ performances were deficient by falling bel

2003In Segura v. State, 749 N.E.2d 496 (Ind.2001), our supreme court noted, In Williams, the United States Supreme Court held that Fretwell did not require a showing that the conviction or sentence was "unfair or unreliable” to establish the prejudice prong of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in all cases. 529 U.S. at 391-93 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 .

2018The prejudice prong for the waiver-of-issues category of an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim requires an examination of whether the issues that appellate counsel failed to raise “‘would have been clearly more likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.’” Garrett, 992 N.E.2d at 724 (quoting Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 193 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied). [16] “Ineffective assistance is very rarely found in cases where a defendant asserts that appellate counsel failed to raise an issue on . . . appeal” because “the decision of what issues to raise i

2018The prejudice prong for the waiver-of-issues category of an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim requires an examination of whether the issues that appellate counsel failed to raise “‘would have been clearly more likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.’” Garrett, 992 N.E.2d at 724 (quoting Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 193 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied). [16] “Ineffective assistance is very rarely found in cases where a defendant asserts that appellate counsel failed to raise an issue on . . . appeal” because “the decision of what issues to raise i

2018See French, 778 N.E.2d at 824 (explaining that a petitioner’s failure to satisfy either the deficient performance prong or the prejudice prong will cause an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to fail). 4 4 We note, however, that there is caselaw suggesting that there are some questions about whether the Segura Court properly interpreted Hill and whether our Court is properly applying the Segura’s prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of guilty plea counsel instead of the analysis in Hill and Lee.

2018The prejudice prong for the waiver-of-issues category of an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim requires an examination of whether the issues that appellate counsel failed to raise “‘would have been clearly more likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.’” Garrett, 992 N.E.2d at 724 (quoting Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 193 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied). [16] “Ineffective assistance is very rarely found in cases where a defendant asserts that appellate counsel failed to raise an issue on . . . appeal” because “the decision of what issues to raise i

2018To show that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an issue on appeal, a petitioner “‘must overcome the strongest presumption of adequate assistance, and judicial scrutiny is highly Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1702-PC-452 | July 13, 2018 Page 14 of 18 deferential.’” Garrett, 992 N.E.2d at 724 (quoting Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 738 N.E.2d 253, 260-61 (Ind. 2000), reh’g denied, cert. denied). [17] Here, we need not review Dodd’s argument that his resentencing appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue that his fifty-five-year se

2015Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 603 (citations and quotations omitted). [18] With regard to the prejudice prong of the test, “‘To establish the requisite prejudice, a petitioner must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Clarke, 974 N.E.2d at 564 (quoting Trujillo v. State, 962 N.E.2d 110, 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)).

2015Timberlake, 753 N.E.2d at 603 (citations and quotations omitted). [18] With regard to the prejudice prong of the test, “‘To establish the requisite prejudice, a petitioner must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Clarke, 974 N.E.2d at 564 (quoting Trujillo v. State, 962 N.E.2d 110, 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)).

2002See id. (citing State v. Van Cleave, 674 NE.2d 1293, 1299 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1060 , 140 L.Ed.2d 121 (1998)).

2002See id. (citing State v. Van Cleave, 674 NE.2d 1293, 1299 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1060 , 140 L.Ed.2d 121 (1998)).

2002See id. (citing State v. Van Cleave, 674 NE.2d 1293, 1299 (Ind.1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1119 , 118 S.Ct. 1060 , 140 L.Ed.2d 121 (1998)).