Strickland test in New Jersey

2026See also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the two-prong Strickland test in New Jersey).

2026See also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the two-prong Strickland test in New Jersey).

2026To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-prong Strickland test: (1) "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment[,]" and (2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2026To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-prong Strickland test: (1) "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment[,]" and (2) "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2026"With respect to both prongs of the Strickland test, a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on PCR bears the burden of proving his or her right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012) (citations omitted).

2026"With respect to both prongs of the Strickland test, a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on PCR bears the burden of proving his or her right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012) (citations omitted).

2026Under the "second, and far more difficult, prong of the Strickland standard[,]" Gideon, 244 N.J. at 550 (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted), "a defendant 'must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'" State v. O'Neil, 219 N.J. 598, 611 (2014) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2026Under the "second, and far more difficult, prong of the Strickland standard[,]" Gideon, 244 N.J. at 550 (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted), "a defendant 'must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'" State v. O'Neil, 219 N.J. 598, 611 (2014) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2025"The United States Supreme Court has applied the Strickland test to challenges of guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 456 (1994); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1958).

2025"The United States Supreme Court has applied the Strickland test to challenges of guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 456 (1994); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1958).

2026To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish both prongs of the Strickland standard. 466 U.S. at 687 ; see also Nash, 212 N.J. at 542 .

2026To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish both prongs of the Strickland standard. 466 U.S. at 687 ; see also Nash, 212 N.J. at 542 .

2026Therefore, "[d]uring plea negotiations defendants are 'entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel.'" Ibid. (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970)); see also State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 456 (1994) (applying "the Strickland test to challenges of guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel").

2026Therefore, "[d]uring plea negotiations defendants are 'entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel.'" Ibid. (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970)); see also State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 456 (1994) (applying "the Strickland test to challenges of guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel").

2026Under the "second, and far more difficult, prong of the Strickland standard[,]" Gideon, 244 N.J. at 550 (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted), "a defendant 'must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'" State v. O'Neil, 219 N.J. 598, 611 (2014) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2026Under the "second, and far more difficult, prong of the Strickland standard[,]" Gideon, 244 N.J. at 550 (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted), "a defendant 'must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'" State v. O'Neil, 219 N.J. 598, 611 (2014) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ).

2025"With respect to both prongs of the Strickland test, a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on PCR bears the burden of proving [their] right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012) (citing State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 357 (2009); State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 593 (2002)).

2025"With respect to both prongs of the Strickland test, a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on PCR bears the burden of proving [their] right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012) (citing State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 357 (2009); State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 593 (2002)).

2024"Although a demonstration of prejudice constitutes the second part of the Strickland analysis, courts are permitted leeway to choose to examine first whether a defendant has been prejudiced, and if not, to dismiss the claim without determining whether counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient." Gaitan, 209 N.J. at 350 (internal citations removed). "[T]o establish a prima facie claim, a [defendant] must do more than make bald assertions that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

2024A-3087-21 15 Defendant's bald assertions to the contrary do not establish a prima facie Strickland claim, see Cummings, 321 N.J.

2026A-3867-23 21 With respect to showing prejudice under the Strickland analysis after entering a guilty plea, "a defendant must prove 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [he or she] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.'" State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 351 (2012) (alteration in the original) (quoting State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009)).

2026A-3867-23 21 With respect to showing prejudice under the Strickland analysis after entering a guilty plea, "a defendant must prove 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [he or she] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.'" State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 351 (2012) (alteration in the original) (quoting State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009)).

2024A-0984-21 17 satisfies the attorney-deficiency prong in Strickland's analysis." Ibid. (quoting Padilla, 559 U.S. at 371 ).

2022In Padilla v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held counsel's failure to inform a defendant of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea satisfies the first prong of the Strickland analysis. 559 U.S. 356, 371 (2010).

2025"With respect to both prongs of the Strickland test, a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on PCR bears the burden of proving [their] right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012) (citing State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 357 (2009); State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 593 (2002)).

2025"With respect to both prongs of the Strickland test, a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel on PCR bears the burden of proving [their] right to relief by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012) (citing State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 357 (2009); State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 593 (2002)).

2022A defendant may satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test "by a showing that A-2050-20 15 counsel's acts or omissions fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance considered in light of all the circumstances of the case." State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 366 (2008) (quoting Castagna, 187 N.J. at 314 ).

2022A defendant may satisfy the first prong of the Strickland test "by a showing that A-2050-20 15 counsel's acts or omissions fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance considered in light of all the circumstances of the case." State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 366 (2008) (quoting Castagna, 187 N.J. at 314 ).

2024"The quality of counsel's performance cannot be fairly assessed by focusing on a handful of issues while ignoring the totality of counsel's performance in the context of the State's evidence of defendant's guilt." State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 314 (2006) (citing State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 165 (1991)). 2 The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Strickland test in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).

2024"The quality of counsel's performance cannot be fairly assessed by focusing on a handful of issues while ignoring the totality of counsel's performance in the context of the State's evidence of defendant's guilt." State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 314 (2006) (citing State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 165 (1991)). 2 The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Strickland test in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).

2025Well-settled principles guide our review. "[W]hen counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his [or her] Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious." State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 597 (2002) (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (1998)).

2025Well-settled principles guide our review. "[W]hen counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his [or her] Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious." State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 597 (2002) (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (1998)).

2021We agree with Judge Fox that any such motion to suppress would have been unsuccessful. "[W]hen counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his [constitutional] claim is meritorious." State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (1998) (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)).

2021We agree with Judge Fox that any such motion to suppress would have been unsuccessful. "[W]hen counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his [constitutional] claim is meritorious." State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (1998) (citing Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)).

2017We apply the Strickland standard and review the reasonableness of counsel's assistance with "a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments." State v. Martini, 160 N.J. 248, 266 (1999) (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S. Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.

2017We apply the Strickland standard and review the reasonableness of counsel's assistance with "a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments." State v. Martini, 160 N.J. 248, 266 (1999) (quoting Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 691 , 104 S. Ct. at 2066 , 80 L.

2026Therefore, "[d]uring plea negotiations defendants are 'entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel.'" Ibid. (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970)); see also State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 456 (1994) (applying "the Strickland test to challenges of guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel").

2026Therefore, "[d]uring plea negotiations defendants are 'entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel.'" Ibid. (quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970)); see also State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 456 (1994) (applying "the Strickland test to challenges of guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel").

2004We regard our understanding of the Strickland/Fritz prejudice prong for reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in penalty-phase proceedings to be a necessary adaptation of the literal Strickland standard to the realistic limitations on appellate review of jury penalty-phase deliberations. *498 [Ibid. (emphasis added).] The Court noted that the reformulation of the prejudice prong was consistent with "the Strickland Court's admonition that a `reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different' is `a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in

2004In our view, an adaptation of the StricklandJFritz prejudice test to capital-case penalty-phase proceedings that more faithfully reflects our appellate function would require courts to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the jury’s penalty-phase deliberations would have been affected substantially____We regard our understanding of the Strickland/Fritz prejudice prong for reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in penalty-phase proceedings to be a necessary adaptation of the literal Strickland standard to the realistic

2021See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984); accord State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland standard in New Jersey); R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992).

2021See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984); accord State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland standard in New Jersey); R. 3:22-10(b); State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462-63 (1992).

2024Defendant argues the court erred by rejecting his claim that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to request a Franks hearing because had the request been made, "it would have been successful, and the boots at defendant's residence would have been suppressed." A-3651-21 23 "In order to satisfy the Strickland standard when an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on the failure to file a suppression motion, a defendant must establish 'that [their] Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious.'" State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601, 618-19 (2007) (quoting State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (199

2024Defendant argues the court erred by rejecting his claim that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to request a Franks hearing because had the request been made, "it would have been successful, and the boots at defendant's residence would have been suppressed." A-3651-21 23 "In order to satisfy the Strickland standard when an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on the failure to file a suppression motion, a defendant must establish 'that [their] Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious.'" State v. O'Neal, 190 N.J. 601, 618-19 (2007) (quoting State v. Fisher, 156 N.J. 494, 501 (199

2023To sustain his burden under the first prong of the Strickland standard, defendant was required to present evidence sufficient to "'overcome a "strong presumption" that counsel exercised "reasonable professional judgment" and "sound trial strategy" in fulfilling his responsibilities.'" Nash, 212 N.J. at 542 (quoting State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123, 147 (2011)).

2023To sustain his burden under the first prong of the Strickland standard, defendant was required to present evidence sufficient to "'overcome a "strong presumption" that counsel exercised "reasonable professional judgment" and "sound trial strategy" in fulfilling his responsibilities.'" Nash, 212 N.J. at 542 (quoting State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123, 147 (2011)).

2025The Strickland standard applies in the case of appellate counsel as well, but "appellate counsel does not have a constitutional duty to raise every A-3593-22 13 nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant." State v. Morrison, 215 N.J.

2025The Strickland standard applies in the case of appellate counsel as well, but "appellate counsel does not have a constitutional duty to raise every A-3593-22 13 nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant." State v. Morrison, 215 N.J.

2024Super. 508, 513-14 (App. Div. 2007). "[I]n applying the Strickland standard to assess a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, defendant must show not only that his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard, but also that he was prejudiced, i.e., but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been different." Id. at 513 (quoting Morrison, 215 N.J.

2024Super. 508, 513-14 (App. Div. 2007). "[I]n applying the Strickland standard to assess a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, defendant must show not only that his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard, but also that he was prejudiced, i.e., but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been different." Id. at 513 (quoting Morrison, 215 N.J.

2021Against the backdrop of that evidence, the Strickland test, which we continue to apply, requires a defendant to show there exists “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Taccetta, 200 N.J. 183, 193 (2009) (quoting Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52 ); see also State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123, 146 (2011); Goodwin, 173 N.J. at 597 . 29 In this case, the onus remained on Gideon to “affirmatively prove prejudice.” Pierre, 223 N.J. at 583 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ); see also Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52 (“[P]reju

2021Against the backdrop of that evidence, the Strickland test, which we continue to apply, requires a defendant to show there exists “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Taccetta, 200 N.J. 183, 193 (2009) (quoting Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52 ); see also State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123, 146 (2011); Goodwin, 173 N.J. at 597 . 29 In this case, the onus remained on Gideon to “affirmatively prove prejudice.” Pierre, 223 N.J. at 583 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ); see also Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52 (“[P]reju

2025"Additionally, when counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his [or her] Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Fisher, 156 N.J. at 501); see also State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596, 625 (1990) ("The failure to raise unsuccessful legal arguments does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.").

2025"Additionally, when counsel fails to file a suppression motion, the defendant not only must satisfy both parts of the Strickland test but also must prove that his [or her] Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Fisher, 156 N.J. at 501); see also State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596, 625 (1990) ("The failure to raise unsuccessful legal arguments does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.").

2024To set aside a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (i) counsel's assistance was not "within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases," Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266 (1973); and (ii) "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pled 2 The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Strickland standard in State v. Fritz, 195 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).

2024To set aside a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (i) counsel's assistance was not "within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases," Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266 (1973); and (ii) "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pled 2 The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the Strickland standard in State v. Fritz, 195 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).

2021We review de novo the PCR court's factual findings and legal conclusions made without an evidentiary hearing, State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 419-21 (2004), and apply the two-prong Strickland test to Torres's claims of ineffective assistance, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 . 58 (1987) (adopting test).

2021We review de novo the PCR court's factual findings and legal conclusions made without an evidentiary hearing, State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 419-21 (2004), and apply the two-prong Strickland test to Torres's claims of ineffective assistance, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 . 58 (1987) (adopting test).