Strickland v. Washington test in Texas

2020Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 , 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2535 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 101-02 (Tex. Crim.

2019Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 521 , 123 S.Ct. 2527, 2535 , 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 101-02 (Tex. Crim.

2024Generally, we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the Strickland v. Washington standard, which, to obtain a reversal of a conviction, requires an appellant demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2023Rubio, 596 S.W.3d 410 . –26– Generally, we review ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the Strickland v. Washington standard, which, to obtain a reversal of a conviction, requires an appellant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2018In its 1985 decision in Hill v. Lockhart, the United States Supreme Court held that “the two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

2017In Hill, the Supreme Court held that Hill had failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel because he “failed to allege the kind of ‘prejudice’ necessary to satisfy the second half of the Strickland v. Washington test[.]” Id. at 59 .

2021See Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 639-42 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2009), aff’d, 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Brooks v. State, 799 S.W.2d 435, 438-39 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1990, no pet.).

2021See Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 639-42 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2009), aff’d, 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Brooks v. State, 799 S.W.2d 435, 438-39 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1990, no pet.).

2021See Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 639-42 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2009), aff’d, 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Brooks v. State, 799 S.W.2d 435, 438-39 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1990, no pet.).

2021See Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 639-42 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2009), aff’d, 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Brooks v. State, 799 S.W.2d 435, 438-39 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1990, no pet.).

2021See Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 639-42 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2009), aff’d, 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Brooks v. State, 799 S.W.2d 435, 438-39 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1990, no pet.).

2021See Weinn v. State, 281 S.W.3d 633, 639-42 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2009), aff’d, 326 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010); Brooks v. State, 799 S.W.2d 435, 438-39 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1990, no pet.).

2018See In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 544-45 (Tex. 2003) (applying Strickland v. Washington standard to parental termination cases).

2018See In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 544-45 (Tex. 2003) (applying Strickland v. Washington standard to parental termination cases).

2018Padilla v. Kentucky applied the Strickland standard to a claim that the defendant’s lawyer failed to provide needed advice about the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. 559 U.S. 356, 366 (2010); see Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (describing nature of Padilla holding); Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35, 46 (Tex. Crim.

2013Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1482 -84 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

2023Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289, 307 (Tex. Crim.

2023Nava v. State, 415 S.W.3d 289, 307 (Tex. Crim.

2005M.S. , 115 S.W.3d 534, 544-45 (Tex. 2003) (adopting Strickland v. Washington test as the standard for ineffective assistance in civil parental-termination proceedings); see also Thompson v. State , 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim.

2004We review the effectiveness of counsel's representation in a juvenile proceeding under the familiar two-prong Strickland v. Washington standard. 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984); Thompson v. State , 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim.

2015Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 944 (Tex . .

2015Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 944 (Tex. Crim.

2015We believe that where, as here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel took some action in defending his client that no reasonably competent attorney could have believed constituted sound trial strategy, the defendant has shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref’d) (counsel ineffective by not preparing defendant well enough to testy so he would not open door to admission of 45 The Strickland v. Washington standard of review is applied to his prior record in assault and resisting arrest case); Ana

2015We believe that where, as here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel took some action in defending his client that no reasonably competent attorney could have believed constituted sound trial strategy, the defendant has shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref’d) (counsel ineffective by not preparing defendant well enough to testy so he would not open door to admission of his prior record in assault and resisting arrest case); Anaya v. State, 988 S.W.2d 823, 826 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet

2015We believe that where, as here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel took some action in defending his client that no reasonably competent attorney could have believed constituted sound trial strategy, the defendant has shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref’d) (counsel ineffective by not preparing defendant well enough to testy so he would not open door to admission of 45 The Strickland v. Washington standard of review is applied to his prior record in assault and resisting arrest case); Ana

2015We believe that where, as here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel took some action in defending his client that no reasonably competent attorney could have believed constituted sound trial strategy, the defendant has shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref’d) (counsel ineffective by not preparing defendant well enough to testy so he would not open door to admission of his prior record in assault and resisting arrest case); Anaya v. State, 988 S.W.2d 823, 826 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet

2015We believe that where, as here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel took some action in defending his client that no reasonably competent attorney could have believed constituted sound trial strategy, the defendant has shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref’d) (counsel ineffective by not preparing defendant well enough to testy so he would not open door to admission of 45 The Strickland v. Washington standard of review is applied to his prior record in assault and resisting arrest case); Ana

2015We believe that where, as here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel took some action in defending his client that no reasonably competent attorney could have believed constituted sound trial strategy, the defendant has shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref’d) (counsel ineffective by not preparing defendant well enough to testy so he would not open door to admission of his prior record in assault and resisting arrest case); Anaya v. State, 988 S.W.2d 823, 826 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet

2015We believe that where, as here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel took some action in defending his client that no reasonably competent attorney could have believed constituted sound trial strategy, the defendant has shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref’d) (counsel ineffective by not preparing defendant well enough to testy so he would not open door to admission of 45 The Strickland v. Washington standard of review is applied to his prior record in assault and resisting arrest case); Ana

2015We believe that where, as here, the record affirmatively demonstrates that counsel took some action in defending his client that no reasonably competent attorney could have believed constituted sound trial strategy, the defendant has shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.”); Perrero v. State, 990 S.W.2d 896, 899 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. ref’d) (counsel ineffective by not preparing defendant well enough to testy so he would not open door to admission of his prior record in assault and resisting arrest case); Anaya v. State, 988 S.W.2d 823, 826 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet

2011See, e.g., Hollis v. State, 219 S.W.3d 446, 456 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.) (stating that counsel is not required to engage in the filing of futile motions and that to satisfy the Strickland v. Washington standard, an appellant must show both that the motion would have been granted and that it would have resulted in a different outcome at trial).

2011See, e.g., Hollis v. State , 219 S.W.3d 446, 456 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.) (stating that counsel is not required to engage in the filing of futile motions and that to satisfy the Strickland v. Washington standard, an appellant must show both that the motion would have been granted and that it would have resulted in a different outcome at trial).

2023Wiggins v. State, 539 U.S. 510, 521 , 123 S. Ct. 2527, 2535 , 156 L.

2023Wiggins v. State, 539 U.S. 510, 521 , 123 S. Ct. 2527, 2535 , 156 L.

2021See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985); Ex parte Ali, 368 S.W.3d at 833 .

2018VI. 14 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 57–59 (1985) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984)); Ali, 368 S.W.3d at 830 . 15 Ex parte Bowman, 533 S.W.3d 337, 349 (Tex. Crim.

2018When the Supreme Court decided Hill v. Lockhart it applied the Strickland standard to a completely different type of proceeding than the one in Strickland.3 The focus was protecting a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel not the reliability of a particular type of proceeding.4 Later, the Court made clear in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, that prejudice results from the denial of the “entire judicial proceeding” to which a defendant is entitled.5 Yet requiring proof that a defendant would have actually received probation had he received proper advice places the emphas

2018Padilla v. Kentucky applied the Strickland standard to a claim that the defendant’s lawyer failed to provide needed advice about the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. 559 U.S. 356, 366 (2010); see Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (describing nature of Padilla holding); Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35, 46 (Tex. Crim.

2018When the Supreme Court decided Hill v. Lockhart it applied the Strickland standard to a completely different type of proceeding than the one in Strickland.3 The focus was protecting a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel not the reliability of a particular type of proceeding.4 Later, the Court made clear in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, that prejudice results from the denial of the “entire judicial proceeding” to which a defendant is entitled.5 Yet requiring proof that a defendant would have actually received probation had he received proper advice places the emphas

2018Padilla v. Kentucky applied the Strickland standard to a claim that the defendant’s lawyer failed to provide needed advice about the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. 559 U.S. 356, 366 (2010); see Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013) (describing nature of Padilla holding); Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d 35, 46 (Tex. Crim.

2018VI. 14 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 57–59 (1985) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984)); Ali, 368 S.W.3d at 830 . 15 Ex parte Bowman, 533 S.W.3d 337, 349 (Tex. Crim.

2016See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 , (1985); Gomez v. State, 399 S.W.3d 604, 605-06 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, pet. ref’d).