prejudice prong test in Kansas

2022The Ferguson court resolved this anomaly by applying the common- sense rule to analyzing the prejudicial effect of trial counsel's failure to move to vacate in 17 a collateral attack based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 276 Kan. at 444 ; see also Swenson v. State, 284 Kan. 931 , Syl. ¶ 4, 169 P.3d 298 (2007) (common-sense rule is used to analyze the prejudice prong in the test for ineffective assistance of counsel related to failure to file a motion to dismiss or vacate the judgment when alleging a defective complaint)." Harris, 310 Kan. at 1045-46.

2007Where a motion filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 claims trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not file a motion to dismiss or to vacate the judgment alleging a defective complaint, the common-sense rule announced in State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428, 444-45 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003), is used to analyze the prejudice prong in the test for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 276 Kan. at 444-45 .

2024In addressing prejudice, appellate courts "apply the constitutional harmlessness standard laid out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2024In addressing prejudice, appellate courts "apply the constitutional harmlessness standard laid out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2007Where a motion filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 claims trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not file a motion to dismiss or to vacate the judgment alleging a defective complaint, the common-sense rule announced in State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428, 444-45 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003), is used to analyze the prejudice prong in the test for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 276 Kan. at 444-45 .

2007Where a motion filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 claims trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not file a motion to dismiss or to vacate the judgment alleging a defective complaint, the common-sense rule announced in State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428, 444-45 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003), is used to analyze the prejudice prong in the test for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 276 Kan. at 444-45 .

2007The Swenson panel held that, even if the defendant’s appellate counsel was deficient in failing to file a timely petition for review, the defendant failed to meet the prejudice prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel because the petition would not have been granted. 35 Kan.

2007The Swenson panel held that, even if the defendant’s appellate counsel was deficient in failing to file a timely petition for review, the defendant faded to meet the prejudice prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel because the petition would not have been granted. 35 Kan.

2020In Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , the United States Supreme Court provided guidance that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be disposed of by addressing the prejudice prong of the analysis first: "[A] court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies.

2009In criticizing Campbell and its progeny, our Supreme Court noted that the analytical effect of those decisions on the difference between evaluation of counsel that is constitutionally required versus evaluation of counsel that is only statutorily provided for “has appeared to be an inflation of the degree of prejudice required for relief in the case of 60-1507 counsel.” Robertson, 288 Kan. at 231 .

2006He contends that his credibility regarding what clothes he had on the day of his wife’s murder was significant and these “statements would likely have great weight in the minds of the jury in this case.” See Lockhart, 24 Kan.