ineffective assistance claim in Arkansas

2025We also recognize that “there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 488 , at 3–4, 385 S.W.3d 783, 787 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ).

2025We also recognize that “there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 488 , at 3–4, 385 S.W.3d 783, 787 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ).

2021Id., 238 S.W.3d 24 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2021Id., 238 S.W.3d 24 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2019Id. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2015Id. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2020We also recognize that “there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” See id. (quoting Strickland).

2020We also recognize that “there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” See id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ).

2025Whiteside v. State, 2024 Ark. 30 , 684 S.W.3d 588 .

2025Whiteside v. State, 2024 Ark. 30 , 684 S.W.3d 588 .

2025Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the trial court clearly erred in holding that counsel’s performance was not ineffective.” Id. at 2, 517 S.W.3d at 407 .

2024Harmon, 2023 Ark. 179, at 5 , 678 S.W.3d at 393 .

2024Harmon, 2023 Ark. 179, at 5 , 678 S.W.3d at 393 .

2024“Arguments based upon self-serving statements do not meet the burden of establishing an ineffective-assistance claim.” Airsman v. State, 2015 Ark. 409, at 6 , 473 S.W.3d 549, 555 .

2024“Arguments based upon self-serving statements do not meet the burden of establishing an ineffective-assistance claim.” Airsman v. State, 2015 Ark. 409, at 6 , 473 S.W.3d 549, 555 .

2024Id. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Johnson v. State, 2020 Ark. 168 , at 4–6, 598 S.W.3d 515 , 519–20 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ).

2024Id. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Johnson v. State, 2020 Ark. 168 , at 4–6, 598 S.W.3d 515 , 519–20 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ).

2024Id. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Johnson v. State, 2020 Ark. 168 , at 4–6, 598 S.W.3d 515 , 519–20 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ).

2022“There is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective- assistance claim to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Id. at 3, 504 S.W.3d at 605–06.

2021E.g., id. at 4, 444 S.W.3d at 839 . “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 488 , at 3–4, 385 S.W.3d 783, 787 .

2019Strain v. State , 2012 Ark. 42 , 394 S.W.3d 294 .

2019Strain v. State , 2012 Ark. 42 , 394 S.W.3d 294 .

2019Id.

2018Id. "[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim ... to address both components of the inquiry if the defendants made an insufficient showing on one." Id. at 2, 534 S.W.3d 143 .

2016Unless a defendant makes both Strickland showings, it cannot be said that the conviction resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 . 2 Cite as 2016 Ark. 96 I.

2016Anita Taffner first raised the argument that her counsel was ineffective on June 19, 2015, in her response to the Department’s petition to terminate her parental rights.1 Chris 1 On August 13, 2015, Anita also filed a separate “motion for a finding that the adjudication was not a meaningful hearing.” This supports the majority’s holding that while the court ruled on this second motion, the ineffective-assistance claim was separate and distinct. 16 Cite as 2016 Ark. 231 Taffner first raised the argument on June 19, 2015, in his motion for a new lawyer.

2014Appellant first argues on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel did not investigate the case thoroughly and “existent an independent Ake expert for presentation of mitigating evidence.” First, assuming that appellant is referring to Ake v.Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985), in Ake, the Court held that when an indigent defendant makes a preliminary showing that his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a significant factor at trial, due process 3 Cite as 2014 Ark. 148 requires a state to provide access to a psychiatrist’s assistance on the issue.

2014In his petition, appellant first argued that counsel did not provide effective assistance based on counsel’s failure to confront Latasha Smith in cross-examination to bring out “any basis or bad memory when she stated she could not recall the crime or her statements to police.” He alleged that the failure to cross-examine her prejudiced him in that the jury did not get the 4 Cite as 2014 Ark. 17 opportunity to assess her demeanor and discern whether any credibility should be given to her testimony or her prior statement.

2014Id. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both 4 Cite as 2014 Ark. 71 components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2014Id. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim . . . to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 .

2014Thus, the State argues that because Rainer has failed to identify any fundamental ground sufficient to void his judgment and conviction, the circuit court clearly 6 Cite as 2014 Ark. 306 erred in granting his postconviction petition.