ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Washington

2025We disagree. 5 No. 59439-1-II Typically, a defendant brings an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2025We disagree. 5 No. 59439-1-II Typically, a defendant brings an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2020We review ineffective assistance claims de novo.31 “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show that (1) defense counsel’s representation was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.”32 The reasonableness inquiry presumes effective representation and requires the defendant to show the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons for the 30 Id. at 268-69 . 31 State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 883 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009). 32 Id. (citing State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.

2020We review ineffective assistance claims de novo.31 “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show that (1) defense counsel’s representation was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.”32 The reasonableness inquiry presumes effective representation and requires the defendant to show the absence of legitimate strategic or tactical reasons for the 30 Id. at 268-69 . 31 State v. Sutherby, 165 Wn.2d 870, 883 , 204 P.3d 916 (2009). 32 Id. (citing State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.

2025To establish prejudice, the defendant must show that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.’ ” Grier, 171 Wn.2d at 34 (quoting State v. Kyllo, 166 Wn.2d 856, 862 , 215 P.3d 177 8 Introducing such evidence when the State has already presented evidence of the element may not be grounds for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, but that is not what happened in this case.

2020To rebut the strong presumption that counsel's performance was effective, “the defendant bears the burden of establishing the absence of any ‘conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel’s performance.’ ” State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 42 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130 , 101 P.3d 80 (2004)). 33 No. 52971-8-II The “reasonable probability” standard for prejudice in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal is not precisely the same as the “actual and substantial prejudice” standard in a PRP.

2020To rebut the strong presumption that counsel's performance was effective, “the defendant bears the burden of establishing the absence of any ‘conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel’s performance.’ ” State v. Grier, 171 Wn.2d 17, 42 , 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 130 , 101 P.3d 80 (2004)). 33 No. 52971-8-II The “reasonable probability” standard for prejudice in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal is not precisely the same as the “actual and substantial prejudice” standard in a PRP.

2018State v. Jones , 183 Wash.2d 327 , 338, 352 P.3d 776 (2015). ¶35 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim entails a two-pronged inquiry in which the defendant must show (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) " 'the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.' " State v. Grier , 171 Wash.2d 17 , 32-33, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Thomas , 109 Wash.2d 222 , 225-226, 743 P.2d 816 (1987) ), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 153 , 190 L.Ed.2d 112 (2014).

2021State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 78 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (if either part of the ineffective assistance of counsel test is not satisfied, we are not required to address the remaining part of the test). 14 No. 53938-1-II (Consol. with 53948-9-II) Because Phillips was properly advised of the statutory sentencing maximum for his offenses and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Phillips’s counsel’s representation was not deficient, we affirm.

2020The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution guarantee effective assistance of counsel. 1 “The purpose of 1 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 77 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996). 5 78717-9-I the requirement of effective assistance of counsel is to ensure a fair and impartial trial.” 2 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel present mixed questions of law and fact that this court reviews de novo. 3 We examine the entire record to decide whether the appellant received effective representation and a fair trial. 4 To prevail on an ineffecti

2018State v. Jones , 183 Wash.2d 327 , 338, 352 P.3d 776 (2015). ¶35 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim entails a two-pronged inquiry in which the defendant must show (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) " 'the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.' " State v. Grier , 171 Wash.2d 17 , 32-33, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Thomas , 109 Wash.2d 222 , 225-226, 743 P.2d 816 (1987) ), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 153 , 190 L.Ed.2d 112 (2014).

2018State v. Jones , 183 Wash.2d 327 , 338, 352 P.3d 776 (2015). ¶35 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim entails a two-pronged inquiry in which the defendant must show (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) " 'the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.' " State v. Grier , 171 Wash.2d 17 , 32-33, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Thomas , 109 Wash.2d 222 , 225-226, 743 P.2d 816 (1987) ), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 153 , 190 L.Ed.2d 112 (2014).

2022Unlike in Jackson, Wamba here makes an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which requires him to show prejudice, see Rice, 118 Wn.2d at 885 , and does so through collateral review, which also places the burden of establishing prejudice on Wamba.

2012So does In re Personal Restraint of Rice, 118 Wn.2d 876 , 828 P.2d 1086 (1992), upon which the State heavily relies. 4 Contrary to the State’s description of Rice, it is simply one of many cases in which this court employed the “reasonable probability” prejudice standard in resolving an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a personal restraint petition.

2025When reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, there is a strong presumption that counsel’s representation was “adequate, and exceptional deference must be given when evaluating counsel’s strategic decisions.” McNeal, 145 Wn.2d at 362 .

2021When reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, there is a strong presumption that counsel’s representation -4- No. 81787-6-I/5 was “adequate, and exceptional deference must be given when evaluating counsels strategic decisions.” McNeal, 145 Wn.2d at 362 . 1.

2020See State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352, 362 , 37 P.3d 280 (2002) (holding that a legitimate trial strategy cannot serve as a basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

2016State v. McNeal, 145 Wn.2d 352, 362 , 37 P.3d 280 (2002).

2021State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 78 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996) (if either part of the ineffective assistance of counsel test is not satisfied, we are not required to address the remaining part of the test). 14 No. 53938-1-II (Consol. with 53948-9-II) Because Phillips was properly advised of the statutory sentencing maximum for his offenses and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Phillips’s counsel’s representation was not deficient, we affirm.

2020The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution guarantee effective assistance of counsel. 1 “The purpose of 1 State v. Hendrickson, 129 Wn.2d 61, 77 , 917 P.2d 563 (1996). 5 78717-9-I the requirement of effective assistance of counsel is to ensure a fair and impartial trial.” 2 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel present mixed questions of law and fact that this court reviews de novo. 3 We examine the entire record to decide whether the appellant received effective representation and a fair trial. 4 To prevail on an ineffecti

2025Crace, 174 Wn.2d at 847 (A petitioner must satisfy both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.).

2018Restraint of Crace, 174 Wn.2d 835, 840 , 846- 47, 280 P.3d 1102 (2012) (adopting the ineffective assistance of counsel analysis in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2026State v. Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d 116, 128 , 546 P.3d 1020 (2024).

2026State v. Bertrand, 3 Wn.3d 116, 128 , 546 P.3d 1020 (2024).

2022Davis, 152 Wn.2d at 720 ; Johnston, 143 Wn.

2021See Davis, 152 Wn.2d at 673 (noting the requirement of an individualized inquiry into defense counsel’s performance when considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).

2018State v. Jones , 183 Wash.2d 327 , 338, 352 P.3d 776 (2015). ¶35 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim entails a two-pronged inquiry in which the defendant must show (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) " 'the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.' " State v. Grier , 171 Wash.2d 17 , 32-33, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Thomas , 109 Wash.2d 222 , 225-226, 743 P.2d 816 (1987) ), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 153 , 190 L.Ed.2d 112 (2014).

2018State v. Jones , 183 Wash.2d 327 , 338, 352 P.3d 776 (2015). ¶35 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim entails a two-pronged inquiry in which the defendant must show (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) " 'the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.' " State v. Grier , 171 Wash.2d 17 , 32-33, 246 P.3d 1260 (2011) (quoting State v. Thomas , 109 Wash.2d 222 , 225-226, 743 P.2d 816 (1987) ), cert. denied , --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 153 , 190 L.Ed.2d 112 (2014).

2026State v. Vazquez, 198 Wn.2d 239 , 248, 494 P.3d 424 (2021).

2025Trial counsel’s decision about when, and how, to object is a “classic example of trial tactics.” State v. Vazquez, 198 Wn.2d 239 , 248, 494 P.3d 424 (2021). 17 In considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we engage in a strong presumption that counsel’s representation was effective.