benchmark for judging claim in Arkansas

2025App. 458 , 655 S.W.3d 686 . 6 Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 , 60 S.W.3d 404 (2001). 7 Id. 8 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). 2 counsel under a two-prong standard.

2015Id. Í “The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be ‘whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process |fithat the trial cannot be relied, on . as having produced a just result.’ Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)].” Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181 , 403 S.W.3d 55 .

2015The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Taylor v. State, 2013 Ark. 146 , 427 S.W.3d 29 .

2015The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Taylor v. State, 2013 Ark. 146 , 427 S.W.3d 29 .

2025First, a petitioner raising a claim of ineffective assistance must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the petitioner by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.6 A petitioner making an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective 2 (2023). 3 Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 , 60 S.W.3d 404 (2001). 4 Id. 5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 6 Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 , 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007). 2 standard of reasonableness.7 A court must indulge in a

2025First, a petitioner raising a claim of ineffective assistance must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the petitioner by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.6 A petitioner making an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective 2 (2023). 3 Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 , 60 S.W.3d 404 (2001). 4 Id. 5 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 6 Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 , 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007). 2 standard of reasonableness.7 A court must indulge in a

2025On appeal from a circuit court’s ruling on a petitioner’s request for Rule 37 relief, this court will not reverse the circuit court’s decision granting or denying postconviction relief unless it is clearly erroneous.6 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.7 The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process

2025App. 458 , 655 S.W.3d 686 . 6 Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 , 60 S.W.3d 404 (2001). 7 Id. 8 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). 2 counsel under a two-prong standard.

2021First, a petitioner raising a claim of ineffective assistance must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the petitioner by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 5 A petitioner making an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 6 2 Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 , 60 S.W.3d 404 (2001). 3 Id. 4 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 5 Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 , 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007). 6 Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59

2021First, a petitioner raising a claim of ineffective assistance must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the petitioner by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 5 A petitioner making an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 6 2 Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 , 60 S.W.3d 404 (2001). 3 Id. 4 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 5 Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 , 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007). 6 Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59

2021App. 29 , at 2–3, 569 S.W.3d 348, 351 , this court set forth the framework for analyzing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim: The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.

2020First, a petitioner raising a claim 2 See Duck v. State, 2016 Ark.

2019The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Id. at 3–4, 542 S.W.3d at 862 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 ).

2019The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be “whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Id. at 3–4, 542 S.W.3d at 862 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 ).

2014Eason v. State, 2011 Ark. 352 (per curiam); Hayes v. State, 2011 Ark. 327 , 383 S.W.3d 824 (per curiam).

2014Eason v. State, 2011 Ark. 352 (per curiam); Hayes v. State, 2011 Ark. 327 , 383 S.W.3d 824 (per curiam).

2014Pursuant to 2 Cite as 2014 Ark. 290 Strickland, we assess the effectiveness of counsel under a two-prong standard.