Strickland test in Illinois

2026People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , - 21 - ¶ 30 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). “[T]o prevail on an ineffective assistance claim under Strickland, a defendant must establish both prongs of the Strickland test.” Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 31 . ¶ 70 To establish that a defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficiencies, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 .

2026“This ‘arguable’ Strickland test [(Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984))] demonstrates that first-stage postconviction petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel are judged by a lower pleading standard than are such petitions at the second stage of the proceeding.” Id. ¶ 20.

2026See People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526 (1984) (adopting the Strickland standard).

2026See People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526 (1984) (adopting the Strickland standard).

2026People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 219-20 (2004) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). ¶ 101 Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test defeats a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2026People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 219-20 (2004) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). ¶ 101 Failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test defeats a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2026People v. Clendenin, 238 Ill. 2d 302, 317-18 (2010). ¶ 61 In this case, we cannot find trial counsel performed deficiently.

2026People v. Clendenin, 238 Ill. 2d 302, 317-18 (2010). ¶ 61 In this case, we cannot find trial counsel performed deficiently.

2025However, for purposes of the second prong of the Strickland standard, a defendant who has pleaded guilty “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).

2025However, for purposes of the second prong of the Strickland standard, a defendant who has pleaded guilty “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).

2026People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 397 (1998). “[I]t is not necessary to evaluate both prongs of the Strickland test if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” People v. Waldrop, 2025 IL App (5th) 230085-U , ¶ 11. ¶ 17 Strategic decisions made by counsel are entitled to substantial deference.

2026People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 397 (1998). “[I]t is not necessary to evaluate both prongs of the Strickland test if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” People v. Waldrop, 2025 IL App (5th) 230085-U , ¶ 11. ¶ 17 Strategic decisions made by counsel are entitled to substantial deference.

2025See People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361, 377 (2000) (“The failure to satisfy either the deficiency prong or the prejudice prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.); see also People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 362 (2000) (Where the underlying issue lacks merit, a defendant suffers no prejudice; therefore, the reviewing court is not required to examine the merits of the claims not raised by appellate counsel.). ¶ 91 C.

2025See People v. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 361, 377 (2000) (“The failure to satisfy either the deficiency prong or the prejudice prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.); see also People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 362 (2000) (Where the underlying issue lacks merit, a defendant suffers no prejudice; therefore, the reviewing court is not required to examine the merits of the claims not raised by appellate counsel.). ¶ 91 C.

2025“More specifically, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that there is a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). “[A] defendant must establish both prongs of the Strickland test, such that the failure to establish either precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 31 .

2025“More specifically, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that there is a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). “[A] defendant must establish both prongs of the Strickland test, such that the failure to establish either precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 31 .

2022People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93, 107 (2000) (failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶ 64 Even if we were to assume counsel’s performance was deficient, defendant failed to demonstrate that he was arguably prejudiced by counsel’s performance by showing he would have been better off going to trial.

2022People v. Patterson, 192 Ill. 2d 93, 107 (2000) (failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶ 64 Even if we were to assume counsel’s performance was deficient, defendant failed to demonstrate that he was arguably prejudiced by counsel’s performance by showing he would have been better off going to trial.

2026To establish deficiency, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction might have been the product of sound trial strategy.” Evans, 186 Ill. 2d at 93 . ¶ 17 For the second part of the Strickland test, the defendant must prove that he suffered prejudice.

2026To establish deficiency, the defendant must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction might have been the product of sound trial strategy.” Evans, 186 Ill. 2d at 93 . ¶ 17 For the second part of the Strickland test, the defendant must prove that he suffered prejudice.

2023For instance, in Pitsonbarger, our supreme court adopted the Strickland standard of prejudice for successive postconviction petitions, which was first articulated in People v. Flores, 153 Ill.2d 264 , 280 1992) (“Whether the seemingly narrower test of prejudice required in a Strickland analysis satisfies the requisite showing of prejudice under McCleskey is uncertain”), and reaffirmed that adoption in People v. Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 34 (“We analogized the cause-and-prejudice test in the context of a successive postconviction petition to the cause-and-prejudice test for ineffective assistanc

2023For instance, in Pitsonbarger, our supreme court adopted the Strickland standard of prejudice for successive postconviction petitions, which was first articulated in People v. Flores, 153 Ill.2d 264 , 280 1992) (“Whether the seemingly narrower test of prejudice required in a Strickland analysis satisfies the requisite showing of prejudice under McCleskey is uncertain”), and reaffirmed that adoption in People v. Smith, 2014 IL 115946, ¶ 34 (“We analogized the cause-and-prejudice test in the context of a successive postconviction petition to the cause-and-prejudice test for ineffective assistanc

2026Courts have recognized that we may apply the Strickland test (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)) for ineffective assistance of counsel to measure “reasonable” performance under the Act, as “[i]t stands to reason that, if postconviction counsel’s assistance cannot be deemed ineffective under Strickland, it cannot be deemed unreasonable under the Act.” People v. Pabello, 2019 IL App (2d) 170867, ¶ 36 . ¶ 22 Under the Strickland test, the defendant must prove both that: (1) his attorney’s errors were so serious as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that the

2026Courts have recognized that we may apply the Strickland test (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)) for ineffective assistance of counsel to measure “reasonable” performance under the Act, as “[i]t stands to reason that, if postconviction counsel’s assistance cannot be deemed ineffective under Strickland, it cannot be deemed unreasonable under the Act.” People v. Pabello, 2019 IL App (2d) 170867, ¶ 36 . ¶ 22 Under the Strickland test, the defendant must prove both that: (1) his attorney’s errors were so serious as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that the

2025(West 2022)).” Id. ¶ 161 Having concluded that Krankel counsel’s decision not to present all of a defendant’s nonfrivolous claims, on its own, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, we next examine Krankel counsel’s and Morris’s representation under the usual Strickland standard—namely, “a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.” People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490, 496 (2010). ¶ 162 Because we conclude that Krankel counsel’s failure to raise defendant’s specific claims for ineffective assist

2025(West 2022)).” Id. ¶ 161 Having concluded that Krankel counsel’s decision not to present all of a defendant’s nonfrivolous claims, on its own, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, we next examine Krankel counsel’s and Morris’s representation under the usual Strickland standard—namely, “a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.” People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490, 496 (2010). ¶ 162 Because we conclude that Krankel counsel’s failure to raise defendant’s specific claims for ineffective assist

2023“A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test[,]” and a failure to establish either prong “ ‘will be fatal to the claim.’ ” Id. at 411 (quoting People v. Sanchez, 169 Ill. 2d 472, 487 (1996)). ¶ 37 Here, the sole argument presented on appeal claims that defendant has a right to effective counsel for pretrial hearings.

2023“A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test[,]” and a failure to establish either prong “ ‘will be fatal to the claim.’ ” Id. at 411 (quoting People v. Sanchez, 169 Ill. 2d 472, 487 (1996)). ¶ 37 Here, the sole argument presented on appeal claims that defendant has a right to effective counsel for pretrial hearings.

2026“If either prong of the Strickland test is not met, defendant’s claim must fail.” People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 342 (2007). ¶ 35 Here, it is not necessary to determine whether the respective decisions of trial and appellate counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because we agree with the State the evidence at trial was sufficiently overwhelming such that defendant cannot arguably show he was prejudiced. ¶ 36 First, defendant’s testimony at trial supported his conviction for AHC.

2026“If either prong of the Strickland test is not met, defendant’s claim must fail.” People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 342 (2007). ¶ 35 Here, it is not necessary to determine whether the respective decisions of trial and appellate counsel fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because we agree with the State the evidence at trial was sufficiently overwhelming such that defendant cannot arguably show he was prejudiced. ¶ 36 First, defendant’s testimony at trial supported his conviction for AHC.

2025The Strickland standard requires a defendant to “show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.

2025The Strickland standard requires a defendant to “show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.

2026A reviewing court does not need to determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before considering the prejudice prong of the Strickland test: “ ‘If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will 11 often be so, that course should be followed.’ ” Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d at 527 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ). ¶ 35 To establish prejudice, “defendant must show that counsel’s deficient performance rendered the result of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair.” Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d at 411

2026A reviewing court does not need to determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before considering the prejudice prong of the Strickland test: “ ‘If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will 11 often be so, that course should be followed.’ ” Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d at 527 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ). ¶ 35 To establish prejudice, “defendant must show that counsel’s deficient performance rendered the result of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair.” Richardson, 189 Ill. 2d at 411

2026See People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). ¶ 22 In circumstances such as our own, our supreme court has combined the standard Strickland test with the standard for first-stage summary dismissal.

2026See People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). ¶ 22 In circumstances such as our own, our supreme court has combined the standard Strickland test with the standard for first-stage summary dismissal.

2020Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526 (1984) (adopting the Strickland standard in Illinois); People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248, 269 (1989) (applying the Strickland standard to appellate counsel). ¶ 40 Counsel’s performance is deficient when it falls below “an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 .

2020Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526 (1984) (adopting the Strickland standard in Illinois); People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248, 269 (1989) (applying the Strickland standard to appellate counsel). ¶ 40 Counsel’s performance is deficient when it falls below “an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 .

2024“The failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 438 (2005). ¶ 166 When assessing an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant “must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction of counsel was the product of sound trial strategy and not of incompetence.” People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 397 (1998). “[T]rial counsel’s decision whether to present a particular witness is within the realm of strategic choices that are generally not subject to attack on the grou

2024“The failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 438 (2005). ¶ 166 When assessing an ineffective assistance claim, the defendant “must overcome the strong presumption that the challenged action or inaction of counsel was the product of sound trial strategy and not of incompetence.” People v. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d 366, 397 (1998). “[T]rial counsel’s decision whether to present a particular witness is within the realm of strategic choices that are generally not subject to attack on the grou

2026In Cronic, a companion case to Strickland, the -7- Supreme Court “explained that prejudice may be presumed where (1) the defendant ‘is denied counsel at a critical stage,’ (2) counsel ‘entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,’ or (3) counsel is called upon to represent a client in circumstances under which no lawyer could prove effective assistance.” Id. (quoting Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659-61 ). ¶ 23 Relevant to the instant appeal is the second exception to the Strickland test— namely, the failure “to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversar

2026In Cronic, a companion case to Strickland, the -7- Supreme Court “explained that prejudice may be presumed where (1) the defendant ‘is denied counsel at a critical stage,’ (2) counsel ‘entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,’ or (3) counsel is called upon to represent a client in circumstances under which no lawyer could prove effective assistance.” Id. (quoting Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659-61 ). ¶ 23 Relevant to the instant appeal is the second exception to the Strickland test— namely, the failure “to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversar

2023Hattery’s ruling is to be narrowly construed and “defendant ‘faces a high burden before he can forsake the two-part Strickland test.’ ” People v. Horton, 143 Ill. 2d 11, 24 (1991) (quoting People v. Johnson, 128 Ill. 2d 253, 270 (1989)). ¶ 21 Defendant argues that posttrial counsel’s performance was so deficient that it falls into the Cronic/Hattery exception and thus, he is not required to meet the two-part Strickland test for ineffectiveness.

2023Hattery’s ruling is to be narrowly construed and “defendant ‘faces a high burden before he can forsake the two-part Strickland test.’ ” People v. Horton, 143 Ill. 2d 11, 24 (1991) (quoting People v. Johnson, 128 Ill. 2d 253, 270 (1989)). ¶ 21 Defendant argues that posttrial counsel’s performance was so deficient that it falls into the Cronic/Hattery exception and thus, he is not required to meet the two-part Strickland test for ineffectiveness.

2026People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , - 21 - ¶ 30 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). “[T]o prevail on an ineffective assistance claim under Strickland, a defendant must establish both prongs of the Strickland test.” Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 31 . ¶ 70 To establish that a defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficiencies, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 .

2026People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , - 21 - ¶ 30 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). “[T]o prevail on an ineffective assistance claim under Strickland, a defendant must establish both prongs of the Strickland test.” Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 31 . ¶ 70 To establish that a defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficiencies, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 .

2026People v. Houston, 226 Ill. 2d 135, 144 (2007). ¶ 49 “In unusual cases, the cumulative effect of numerous errors can create a pervasive pattern of unfair prejudice despite the fact that none of the errors, standing alone, would be serious enough to warrant consideration under the second prong” of the Strickland test.

2026People v. Houston, 226 Ill. 2d 135, 144 (2007). ¶ 49 “In unusual cases, the cumulative effect of numerous errors can create a pervasive pattern of unfair prejudice despite the fact that none of the errors, standing alone, would be serious enough to warrant consideration under the second prong” of the Strickland test.

2026See Johnson, 2021 IL 126291, ¶ 53 (we may proceed directly to the prejudice prong without determining whether counsel’s performance was deficient); Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 30 (the failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test defeats the ineffective assistance - 25 - claim).

2026See Johnson, 2021 IL 126291, ¶ 53 (we may proceed directly to the prejudice prong without determining whether counsel’s performance was deficient); Veach, 2017 IL 120649, ¶ 30 (the failure to satisfy either prong of the Strickland test defeats the ineffective assistance - 25 - claim).

2026“A defendant’s failure to establish either prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id.

2026“A defendant’s failure to establish either prong of the Strickland test precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id.

2026For the purposes of a Strickland analysis, “ ‘[a] conclusory allegation that a defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have demanded a trial is insufficient to establish prejudice.’ ” Brown, 2017 IL 121681, ¶ 47 (quoting People v. Valdez, 2016 IL 119860, ¶ 29 ).

2025We find the prejudice prong to be determinative, so we will assume without deciding that counsel’s performance was deficient and proceed to the prejudice analysis. - 13 - See People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 24 (holding a defendant must establish both prongs of the Strickland test to prevail, and the failure to establish either prong precludes a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶ 30 To show prejudice in the context of a guilty plea, the defendant “ ‘must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have

2026See People v. Simpson, 2015 IL 116512, ¶ 35 (“A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test and a failure to satisfy any one of the prongs precludes a finding of ineffectiveness.”).

2026See People v. Simpson, 2015 IL 116512, ¶ 35 (“A defendant must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test and a failure to satisfy any one of the prongs precludes a finding of ineffectiveness.”).