Strickland test in Colorado

2026People v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117, ¶ 50 . 5 ¶ 14 To establish deficient performance, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (applying the Strickland test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in cases involving guilty pleas).

2026People v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117, ¶ 50 . 5 ¶ 14 To establish deficient performance, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (applying the Strickland test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in cases involving guilty pleas).

2026The second-for holding a hearing-requires the court to conduct a hearing unless "the motion, files, and record in the case clearly establish that the allegations presented in the defendant's motion are without merit and do not warrant postconviction relief." Ardolino v. People , 69 P.3d 73, 77 (Colo. 2003) (emphasis added) ("Because relief for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a criminal defendant to prove both deficient representation and prejudice, denial of the motion without a hearing is justified if, but only if, the existing record establishes that the defendant's allegations, e

2026The second-for holding a hearing-requires the court to conduct a hearing unless "the motion, files, and record in the case clearly establish that the allegations presented in the defendant's motion are without merit and do not warrant postconviction relief." Ardolino v. People , 69 P.3d 73, 77 (Colo. 2003) (emphasis added) ("Because relief for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a criminal defendant to prove both deficient representation and prejudice, denial of the motion without a hearing is justified if, but only if, the existing record establishes that the defendant's allegations, e

2026People v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117, ¶ 50 . 5 ¶ 14 To establish deficient performance, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (applying the Strickland test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in cases involving guilty pleas).

2026People v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117, ¶ 50 . 5 ¶ 14 To establish deficient performance, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (applying the Strickland test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in cases involving guilty pleas).

2015Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Dunlap v. People , 173 P.3d 1054, 1062-63 (Colo. 2007). ¶15 In assessing the first prong of the Strickland test, courts “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana , 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see Davis v. People , 871 P.2d 769, 772 (Colo. 1994).

2015Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Dunlap v. People , 173 P.3d 1054, 1062-63 (Colo. 2007). ¶15 In assessing the first prong of the Strickland test, courts “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana , 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see Davis v. People , 871 P.2d 769, 772 (Colo. 1994).

2026Id. at 697 ; see also Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 , 1062-63 (Colo. 2007) (adopting the two-prong Strickland test). 3 ¶9 To establish deficient performance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 .

2026Id. at 697 ; see also Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 , 1062-63 (Colo. 2007) (adopting the two-prong Strickland test). 3 ¶9 To establish deficient performance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 .

2025“Because a defendant must show both deficient 12 performance and prejudice, a court may resolve the claim solely on the basis that the defendant has failed in either regard.” People v. Romero, 2015 COA 7 , ¶ 25. ¶ 20 “The same two-part Strickland test applies to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” People v. Long, 126 P.3d 284, 286 (Colo. App. 2005).

2025“Because a defendant must show both deficient 12 performance and prejudice, a court may resolve the claim solely on the basis that the defendant has failed in either regard.” People v. Romero, 2015 COA 7 , ¶ 25. ¶ 20 “The same two-part Strickland test applies to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” People v. Long, 126 P.3d 284, 286 (Colo. App. 2005).

2014Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); People v. Garcia, 815 P.2d 937, 943 (Colo.1991). 1 21 If a court determines that a defendant has failed to prove either prong of the Strickland analysis, it may deny an ineffective assistance claim without addressing the other prong.

2014Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); People v. Garcia, 815 P.2d 937, 943 (Colo.1991). 1 21 If a court determines that a defendant has failed to prove either prong of the Strickland analysis, it may deny an ineffective assistance claim without addressing the other prong.

2012People v. Russell, 36 P.3d 92, 96 (Colo.App.2001). {8 In assessing the first prong of the Strickland test, courts "indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .

2012People v. Russell, 36 P.3d 92, 96 (Colo.App.2001). {8 In assessing the first prong of the Strickland test, courts "indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 .

2024While Rhee might not agree with trial counsel’s strategy, and in hindsight it may not have been the best defense, Rhee has nonetheless failed to overcome the presumption that this was “sound trial strategy.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana , 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)). ¶ 28 Accordingly, Rhee’s claim regarding the mental capacity and PTS D evidence fails the first prong of the Strickland analysis, and the postconviction court did not err by denying such claim. 11 C.

2024While Rhee might not agree with trial counsel’s strategy, and in hindsight it may not have been the best defense, Rhee has nonetheless failed to overcome the presumption that this was “sound trial strategy.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana , 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)). ¶ 28 Accordingly, Rhee’s claim regarding the mental capacity and PTS D evidence fails the first prong of the Strickland analysis, and the postconviction court did not err by denying such claim. 11 C.

2020The Strickland standard applies “for evaluating the effectiveness of post-conviction counsel.” Silva v. People, 156 P.3d 1164, 1169 (Colo. 2007). ¶ 51 To prove prejudice, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

2020The Strickland standard applies “for evaluating the effectiveness of post-conviction counsel.” Silva v. People, 156 P.3d 1164, 1169 (Colo. 2007). ¶ 51 To prove prejudice, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

2026See Sperry v. McKune, 445 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining that counsel’s failure to raise a meritless issue is not ineffective assistance); see also Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63 , ¶ 25 (Colo. App. 2009) (when an ineffective assistance claim was premised on counsel’s alleged failure to attack the search of the defendant’s apartment, and that search was found to be constitutionally permissible in a companion case, the claim failed because it could not meet the deficient performance prong of the Strickland test). ¶ 18 We are not persuaded by Ciarcia’s argument on appeal that his claim

2026See Sperry v. McKune, 445 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining that counsel’s failure to raise a meritless issue is not ineffective assistance); see also Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63 , ¶ 25 (Colo. App. 2009) (when an ineffective assistance claim was premised on counsel’s alleged failure to attack the search of the defendant’s apartment, and that search was found to be constitutionally permissible in a companion case, the claim failed because it could not meet the deficient performance prong of the Strickland test). ¶ 18 We are not persuaded by Ciarcia’s argument on appeal that his claim

2025See Dunlap, 173 P.3d at 1074 (citing People v. Holman, 647 N.E.2d 960, 966 (1995) (discussing the Strickland standard)).

2025See Dunlap, 173 P.3d at 1074 (citing People v. Holman, 647 N.E.2d 960, 966 (1995) (discussing the Strickland standard)).

2024See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). ¶ 16 In assessing the first prong of the Strickland test, we must “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound 6 trial strategy.’” Id. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see also Le v. Mullin, 311 F.3d 1002, 1025 (10th Cir. 2002) (“For counsel’s performance to be constitutionally ineffective, it must have b

2024See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). ¶ 16 In assessing the first prong of the Strickland test, we must “indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound 6 trial strategy.’” Id. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see also Le v. Mullin, 311 F.3d 1002, 1025 (10th Cir. 2002) (“For counsel’s performance to be constitutionally ineffective, it must have b

2026People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288 , 291 (Colo. App. 2007). 17 ¶ 36 We employ the same Strickland test that is used in criminal cases to evaluate ineffective assistance of counsel claims in dependency and neglect proceedings.

2026People in Interest of C.H., 166 P.3d 288 , 291 (Colo. App. 2007). 17 ¶ 36 We employ the same Strickland test that is used in criminal cases to evaluate ineffective assistance of counsel claims in dependency and neglect proceedings.

2026See People v. Washington, 2014 COA 41, ¶ 20 (“If a court determines that a defendant has failed to prove either prong of the Strickland analysis, it may deny an ineffective assistance claim without addressing the other prong.”). ¶ 23 As support for its conclusion, the court noted that Rabinkov’s postconviction counsel had in fact received copies of the discovery and had access to the court file.

2026See People v. Washington, 2014 COA 41, ¶ 20 (“If a court determines that a defendant has failed to prove either prong of the Strickland analysis, it may deny an ineffective assistance claim without addressing the other prong.”). ¶ 23 As support for its conclusion, the court noted that Rabinkov’s postconviction counsel had in fact received copies of the discovery and had access to the court file.

2014Compare Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 68, ¶ 17 , 288 P.3d 116, 120 ("'The word 'probability' does not require a defendant to show that the deficient performance more likely than not altered the outcome of the case."), and People v. Garcia, 815 P.2d 987, 941 (Colo.1991) ("While this [prejudice] requirement means that the defendant must establish more than the mere possibility that counsel's errors affected the outcome of the proceeding, it does not require the defendant to prove that counsel's errors 'more likely than not altered the outcome in the case'") (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698 , 104

2014Compare Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 68, ¶ 17 , 288 P.3d 116, 120 ("'The word 'probability' does not require a defendant to show that the deficient performance more likely than not altered the outcome of the case."), and People v. Garcia, 815 P.2d 987, 941 (Colo.1991) ("While this [prejudice] requirement means that the defendant must establish more than the mere possibility that counsel's errors affected the outcome of the proceeding, it does not require the defendant to prove that counsel's errors 'more likely than not altered the outcome in the case'") (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698 , 104

1994Nevertheless, "the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of witnesses with regard to this portion of the Strickland test." People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523, 529 (Colo.1987).

1994Nevertheless, "the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of witnesses with regard to this portion of the Strickland test." People v. Pozo, 746 P.2d 523, 529 (Colo.1987).

2025“Because a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice, a court may resolve the claim solely on the basis that the defendant has failed in either regard.” People v. Karpierz, 165 P.3d 753, 759 (Colo. App. 2006). ¶ 13 The same two-prong Strickland test applies to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

2025“Because a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice, a court may resolve the claim solely on the basis that the defendant has failed in either regard.” People v. Karpierz, 165 P.3d 753, 759 (Colo. App. 2006). ¶ 13 The same two-prong Strickland test applies to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

2025To meet this burden, the defendant must establish that rejection of the plea “would have been rational under the circumstances.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372 (2010). 9 ¶ 20 An ineffective assistance claim may be denied without a hearing if the defendant’s allegations fail to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test.

2025To meet this burden, the defendant must establish that rejection of the plea “would have been rational under the circumstances.” Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 372 (2010). 9 ¶ 20 An ineffective assistance claim may be denied without a hearing if the defendant’s allegations fail to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test.

2025See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162 (2012) (the Strickland test applies to claims that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance in the plea-bargaining process). ¶ 37 Although Johnston offered expert testimony that mitigating evidence such as school or social service records would have “potentially” lowered the prosecution’s offer, his argument ends there.

2025See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 162 (2012) (the Strickland test applies to claims that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance in the plea-bargaining process). ¶ 37 Although Johnston offered expert testimony that mitigating evidence such as school or social service records would have “potentially” lowered the prosecution’s offer, his argument ends there.

2005Thus, for example, a defendant who shows that counsel disregarded specific instructions to appeal will have established both prongs of the Strickland test: • “[A] lawyer who disregards specific instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477 , 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000).

2005Thus, for example, a defendant who shows that counsel disregarded specific instructions to appeal will have established both prongs of the Strickland test: • “[A] lawyer who disregards specific instructions from the defendant to file a notice of appeal acts in a manner that is professionally unreasonable.” Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477 , 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000).

2026People v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117, ¶ 50 . 5 ¶ 14 To establish deficient performance, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (applying the Strickland test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in cases involving guilty pleas).

2026People v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117, ¶ 50 . 5 ¶ 14 To establish deficient performance, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (applying the Strickland test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in cases involving guilty pleas).

2019Tex. June 13, 2012) (noting that, although some courts have applied Sullivan to “ineffective assistance of counsel claims grounded on a conflict of interest between an attorney’s personal or financial interests and the attorney’s clients’ interests,” an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “grounded on a conflict of interest between an attorney’s duty to a client and the attorney’s own self-interest is governed by the Strickland standard” (citing United States v. Newell, 315 F.3d 510, 516 (5th Cir. 2002))). ¶ 39 The majority in Mickens persuasively reasoned that Sullivan articulated a rule

2019Tex. June 13, 2012) (noting that, although some courts have applied Sullivan to “ineffective assistance of counsel claims grounded on a conflict of interest between an attorney’s personal or financial interests and the attorney’s clients’ interests,” an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “grounded on a conflict of interest between an attorney’s duty to a client and the attorney’s own self-interest is governed by the Strickland standard” (citing United States v. Newell, 315 F.3d 510, 516 (5th Cir. 2002))). ¶ 39 The majority in Mickens persuasively reasoned that Sullivan articulated a rule

2015See People v. Vicente-Sontay, 2014 COA 175, ¶ 21 , 361 P.3d 1046 (if court determines that the defendant has failed to prove either prong of Strickland analysis, it may deny the claim without addressing the other prong).

2015See People v. Vicente-Sontay, 2014 COA 175, ¶ 21 , 361 P.3d 1046 (if court determines that the defendant has failed to prove either prong of Strickland analysis, it may deny the claim without addressing the other prong).

2018Cuyler v. Sullivan , 446 U.S. 335 , 349-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). ¶ 26 Although it has continued to recognize this standard for assessing the impact of "actual conflicts" to be an exception to the Strickland standard, in Mickens the Court clarified the scope of the exception to some degree by emphasizing that "the Sullivan standard is not properly read as requiring inquiry into actual conflict as something separate and apart from adverse effect." Mickens , 535 U.S. at 172 n.5, 122 S.Ct. 1237 .

2018Cuyler v. Sullivan , 446 U.S. 335 , 349-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708 , 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). ¶ 26 Although it has continued to recognize this standard for assessing the impact of "actual conflicts" to be an exception to the Strickland standard, in Mickens the Court clarified the scope of the exception to some degree by emphasizing that "the Sullivan standard is not properly read as requiring inquiry into actual conflict as something separate and apart from adverse effect." Mickens , 535 U.S. at 172 n.5, 122 S.Ct. 1237 .

2025People v. Duran, 2025 COA 34, ¶ 16 ; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (applying the Strickland test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in cases involving guilty pleas).

2025People v. Duran, 2025 COA 34, ¶ 16 ; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57 (1985) (applying the Strickland test to ineffective assistance of counsel claims in cases involving guilty pleas).

2025People v. Gandiaga, 70 P.3d 523, 526 (Colo. App. 2002). 1.

2025People v. Gandiaga, 70 P.3d 523, 526 (Colo. App. 2002). 1.