Strickland test in Kansas

2025And the district court properly may deny a motion that falters on the prejudice component of the Strickland test without assessing the sufficiency of the representation. 466 U.S. at 697 ("If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed."); see Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828 , 843- 44, 283 P.3d 152 (2012).

2025And the district court properly may deny a motion that falters on the prejudice component of the Strickland test without assessing the sufficiency of the representation. 466 U.S. at 697 ("If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed."); see Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828 , 843- 44, 283 P.3d 152 (2012).

2025Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 882 ; see 3 Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3-4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2025Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 882 ; see 3 Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3-4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2025And the district court properly may deny a motion that falters on the prejudice component of the Strickland test without assessing the sufficiency of the representation. 466 U.S. at 697 ("If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed."); see Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828 , 843- 44, 283 P.3d 152 (2012).

2025And the district court properly may deny a motion that falters on the prejudice component of the Strickland test without assessing the sufficiency of the representation. 466 U.S. at 697 ("If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed."); see Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828 , 843- 44, 283 P.3d 152 (2012).

2012Cf. Kargus v. State, 284 Kan. 908, 924-25 , 169 P.3d 307 (2007) (noting distinction between attorney’s performance denying defendant a fair proceeding, where Strickland presumption of reliability applies, and depriving defendant of a right to a proceeding, where presumption cannot apply because proceeding did not occur).

2012Cf. Kargus v. State, 284 Kan. 908, 924-25 , 169 P.3d 307 (2007) (noting distinction between attorney’s performance denying defendant a fair proceeding, where Strickland presumption of reliability applies, and depriving defendant of a right to a proceeding, where presumption cannot apply because proceeding did not occur).

2021When considering a claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to petition for review, we apply "an adapted version of the Strickland standard to judge whether a criminal defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during the course of a direct appeal." State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200, 224 , 195 P.3d 753 (2008).

2021When considering a claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to petition for review, we apply "an adapted version of the Strickland standard to judge whether a criminal defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during the course of a direct appeal." State v. Patton, 287 Kan. 200, 224 , 195 P.3d 753 (2008).

2022The Court suggested the adverse effect exception test or the Strickland test may apply but left it an open question. 535 U.S. at 176 ; Galaviz, 296 Kan. at 184 . 6 As a practical matter, Kansas courts have applied the adverse effect exception to cases that fall within the Mickens reservation with no further discussion or explanation.

2022The Court suggested the adverse effect exception test or the Strickland test may apply but left it an open question. 535 U.S. at 176 ; Galaviz, 296 Kan. at 184 . 6 As a practical matter, Kansas courts have applied the adverse effect exception to cases that fall within the Mickens reservation with no further discussion or explanation.

2013See Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 2-4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance); see also Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271, 274-75 , 252 P.3d 573 (2011) (noting standard and applying it to appellate representation on direct appeal).

2012Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; Chamberlain, 236 Kan. at 656-57 ; see, e.g., Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271, 274-75 , 252 P.3d 573 (2011); State v. Davis, 277 Kan. 309, 314-15 , 85 P.3d 1164 (2004); State v. Orr, 262 Kan. 312, 317 , 940 P.2d 42 (1997); State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 598-603 , 932 P.2d 981 (1997); see also State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624, 643 , 88 P.3d 218 (2004) (discussing difference between Strickland test that applies to deficient performance of counsel and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon conflict of interest that are analyzed somewhat differently under Mic

2013See Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 2-4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance); see also Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271, 274-75 , 252 P.3d 573 (2011) (noting standard and applying it to appellate representation on direct appeal).

2012Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; Chamberlain, 236 Kan. at 656-57 ; see, e.g., Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271, 274-75 , 252 P.3d 573 (2011); State v. Davis, 277 Kan. 309, 314-15 , 85 P.3d 1164 (2004); State v. Orr, 262 Kan. 312, 317 , 940 P.2d 42 (1997); State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 598-603 , 932 P.2d 981 (1997); see also State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624, 643 , 88 P.3d 218 (2004) (discussing difference between Strickland test that applies to deficient performance of counsel and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon conflict of interest that are analyzed somewhat differently under Mic

2022Put differently, Villa "must meet the commonly known Strickland test and show that (1) [Mitchell's] performance fell below the objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that but for [Mitchell's] errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Bricker, 292 Kan. at 245-46 ; see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2013Consequently, Sarabia-Flores must meet the Strickland test by demonstrating that (1) counsel’s performance fell below the objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 466 U.S. at 687 ; see Bricker, 292 Kan. at 245-46 .

2025Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 882 ; see 3 Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3-4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2025Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 882 , 335 P.3d 1162 (2014); see Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3-4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2022The Court suggested the adverse effect exception test or the Strickland test may apply but left it an open question. 535 U.S. at 176 ; Galaviz, 296 Kan. at 184 . 6 As a practical matter, Kansas courts have applied the adverse effect exception to cases that fall within the Mickens reservation with no further discussion or explanation.

2022The Court suggested the adverse effect exception test or the Strickland test may apply but left it an open question. 535 U.S. at 176 ; Galaviz, 296 Kan. at 184 . 6 As a practical matter, Kansas courts have applied the adverse effect exception to cases that fall within the Mickens reservation with no further discussion or explanation.

2025See Fuller v. State, 303 Kan. 478, 487 , 363 P.3d 373 (2015)." 2019 WL 6041443 , at *6.

2025See Fuller v. State, 303 Kan. 478, 487 , 363 P.3d 373 (2015)." 2019 WL 6041443 , at *6.

2024See State v. Herring, 312 Kan. 192 , 200-02, 474 P.3d 285 (2020) (finding an abuse of discretion where the district court explicitly applied the more stringent, constitutional Strickland standard to the first Edgar factor).

2024See State v. Herring, 312 Kan. 192 , 198, 474 P.3d 285 (2020).

2024See Khalil-Alsalaami v. State, 313 Kan. 472 , 526, 486 P.3d 1216 (2021).

2024See Khalil-Alsalaami v. State, 313 Kan. 472 , 526, 486 P.3d 1216 (2021).

2020Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 930-31, 934 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see also State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 852-53 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018) (detailed quotation describing the Strickland standard).

2020Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 930-31, 934 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see also State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 852-53 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018) (detailed quotation describing the Strickland standard).

2020Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 930-31, 934 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see also State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 852-53 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018) (detailed quotation describing the Strickland standard).

2020Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 930-31, 934 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see also State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 852-53 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018) (detailed quotation describing the Strickland standard).

2007See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 , 145 L.

2007See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 , 145 L.

2025Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 882 ; see 3 Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3-4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2025Ed. 2d 674 (1984); State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643 , 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Sola-Morales v. State, 300 Kan. 875, 882 , 335 P.3d 1162 (2014); see Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650 , Syl. ¶¶ 3-4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985) (adopting and stating Strickland test for ineffective assistance).

2020When deficient attorney performance under the Sixth Amendment is alleged, the court applies the two-pronged Strickland analysis: "(1) whether the attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for the attorney's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965, 969 , 318 P.3d 987 (2014) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2020When deficient attorney performance under the Sixth Amendment is alleged, the court applies the two-pronged Strickland analysis: "(1) whether the attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for the attorney's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." State v. Kelly, 298 Kan. 965, 969 , 318 P.3d 987 (2014) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2013To clarify again, that test is less stringent than the Strickland test, and as we said in Boldridge , a defendant claiming that his or her attorney had a conflict of interest that affected the adequacy of counsel’s representation need not demonstrate prejudice in the traditional sense, i.e., need not establish that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. 289 Kan. at 622-23 .

2013To clarify again, that test is less stringent than the Strickland test, and as we said in Boldridge , a defendant claiming that his or her attorney had a conflict of interest that affected the adequacy of counsel’s representation need not demonstrate prejudice in the traditional sense, i.e., need not establish that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. 289 Kan. at 622-23 .

2024Evans, 315 Kan. at 217-18 .

2024Evans, 315 Kan. at 217-18 .

2022See Mullins v. State, 30 Kan.

2022See Mullins v. State, 30 Kan.

2021State v. Coones, 301 Kan. 64, 70 , 339 P.3d 375 (2014).

2021State v. Coones, 301 Kan. 64, 70 , 339 P.3d 375 (2014).

2020State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019).

2020State v. Salary, 309 Kan. 479, 483 , 437 P.3d 953 (2019).

2019Under this category, a criminal defendant must satisfy the two-part Strickland test by proving: " ' "(1) counsel's performance was deficient, which means counsel made errors so serious that counsel's performance was less than that guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which requires showing counsel's errors *839 were so serious they deprived defendant of a fair trial." ' " Cheatham , 296 Kan. at 431 , 292 P.3d 318 .

2019Under this category, a criminal defendant must satisfy the two-part Strickland test by proving: " ' "(1) counsel's performance was deficient, which means counsel made errors so serious that counsel's performance was less than that guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, which requires showing counsel's errors *839 were so serious they deprived defendant of a fair trial." ' " Cheatham , 296 Kan. at 431 , 292 P.3d 318 .