Strickland test in Missouri

2025Analysis “To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test.” Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

2025Analysis “To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test.” Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

2024“The movant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was reasonable and effective to meet the first prong of the Strickland test.” Smith v. State, 370 S.W.3d 883, 886 (Mo. banc 2012) (citing Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170, 176 (Mo. banc 2009)).

2024“The movant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was reasonable and effective to meet the first prong of the Strickland test.” Smith v. State, 370 S.W.3d 883, 886 (Mo. banc 2012) (citing Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170, 176 (Mo. banc 2009)).

2019As for the Strickland test, “actions that constitute sound trial strategy are not grounds for ineffective[-]assistance claims[.]” Braddy, 559 S.W.3d at 910 (quoting State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 729, 746 (Mo. banc 1997)).

2019As for the Strickland test, “actions that constitute sound trial strategy are not grounds for ineffective[-]assistance claims[.]” Braddy, 559 S.W.3d at 910 (quoting State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 729, 746 (Mo. banc 1997)).

2024However, even if there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to convict McConnell of sodomy in the second degree such that trial counsels’ performance had no outcome-determinative impact on McConnell’s trial, our inquiry into prejudice would not 20 end. “[I]n most cases, an error that is not outcome-determinative on direct appeal will also fail to meet the Strickland test.” Deck, 68 S.W.3d at 428 ; Zych v. State, 81 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) (stating similar).

2024However, even if there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to convict McConnell of sodomy in the second degree such that trial counsels’ performance had no outcome-determinative impact on McConnell’s trial, our inquiry into prejudice would not 20 end. “[I]n most cases, an error that is not outcome-determinative on direct appeal will also fail to meet the Strickland test.” Deck, 68 S.W.3d at 428 ; Zych v. State, 81 S.W.3d 96, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) (stating similar).

2023Analysis “To obtain postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must satisfy the two-prong Strickland standard.” McFadden v. State, 619 S.W.3d 434 , 445 (Mo. banc 2020) (citing Anderson v. State, 564 S.W.3d 592, 600 (Mo. banc 2018)).

2023Analysis “To obtain postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must satisfy the two-prong Strickland standard.” McFadden v. State, 619 S.W.3d 434 , 445 (Mo. banc 2020) (citing Anderson v. State, 564 S.W.3d 592, 600 (Mo. banc 2018)).

2025The motion court’s findings are presumed correct and the ruling “will only be disturbed if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with the definite impression that a mistake has been made.” Id. 3 Discussion To obtain post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, Smith must satisfy the two-pronged Strickland test.

2025The motion court’s findings are presumed correct and the ruling “will only be disturbed if, after a review of the entire record, the reviewing court is left with the definite impression that a mistake has been made.” Id. 3 Discussion To obtain post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, Smith must satisfy the two-pronged Strickland test.

2023Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Sanders, 738 S.W.2d at 857 . 3 To satisfy the performance prong of the Strickland test, Movant “must identify specific acts or omissions of counsel that resulted from unreasonable professional judgment[,]” which the motion court must find are outside the range of competent assistance.

2023Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Sanders, 738 S.W.2d at 857 . 3 To satisfy the performance prong of the Strickland test, Movant “must identify specific acts or omissions of counsel that resulted from unreasonable professional judgment[,]” which the motion court must find are outside the range of competent assistance.

2025“To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test.” Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017).

2025“To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test.” Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017).

2024Johnson v. State, 406 S.W.3d 892, 898 (Mo. banc 2013). 3 To receive post-conviction relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must satisfy the two pronged Strickland test.

2018See Johnson v. State , 406 S.W.3d 892 , 898 (Mo. banc 2013) (elucidating this principle with respect to Rule 29.15 motions). *569 Discussion The Strickland Test We apply the two-part Strickland test to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for post-conviction relief.

2002After setting forth the applicable Strickland standard, Sidebottom noted that the error was raised on direct appeal, but was determined not to have resulted in plain error. 781 S.W.2d at 796-97 .

2002After setting forth the applicable Strickland standard, Sidebottom noted that the error was raised on direct appeal, but was determined not to have resulted in plain error. 781 S.W.2d at 796-97 .

2024“To receive post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, a movant must offer sufficient allegations to allow the motion court to meaningfully apply the Strickland standard and decide whether the pleaded claim warrants the relief requested.” Jones v. State, 679 S.W.3d 566 , 574 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023); Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819, 824 (Mo. banc 2000).

2024“To receive post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, a movant must offer sufficient allegations to allow the motion court to meaningfully apply the Strickland standard and decide whether the pleaded claim warrants the relief requested.” Jones v. State, 679 S.W.3d 566 , 574 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023); Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819, 824 (Mo. banc 2000).

2014State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 680 (Mo. banc 1998).

2014State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 680 (Mo. banc 1998).

2025Peterson v. State, 149 S.W.3d 583, 585 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (quoting Middleton v. State, 103 S.W.3d 726, 733 (Mo. banc 2003)).

2025Peterson v. State, 149 S.W.3d 583, 585 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (quoting Middleton v. State, 103 S.W.3d 726, 733 (Mo. banc 2003)).

2018See Taylor v. State , 382 S.W.3d 78 , 82 (Mo. banc. 2012) (where facts present overwhelming evidence of guilt, movant has failed to establish prejudice prong of Strickland test and thus is not entitled to post-conviction relief).

2016It is unnecessary to address both prongs of the Strickland test if Movant fails to meet his burden of proof on one prong, and, “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim” based on Movant’s failure to demon *716 strate prejudice, “that course should be followed.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 670, 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Taylor v. State, 382 S.W.3d 78, 81 (Mo.banc 2012) (same).

2015State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 335 (Mo. banc 1996).

2015State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 335 (Mo. banc 1996).

2024“The motion court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the entire record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression a mistake has been made.” Id. (internal marks omitted). 7 “To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test . . . .” Davis, 486 S.W.3d at 905 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

2024“The motion court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the entire record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression a mistake has been made.” Id. (internal marks omitted). 7 “To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test . . . .” Davis, 486 S.W.3d at 905 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

2023The Supreme Court of Missouri has not yet set forth a standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel in SVP proceedings, although it has considered both the “meaningful hearing” standard utilized in termination of parental rights proceedings and the Strickland standard used in criminal proceedings.5 Id. at 898 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

2023The Supreme Court of Missouri has not yet set forth a standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel in SVP proceedings, although it has considered both the “meaningful hearing” standard utilized in termination of parental rights proceedings and the Strickland standard used in criminal proceedings.5 Id. at 898 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

2006To satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test, Anderson is required to show that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Middleton, 103 S.W.3d at 733 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

2006To satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test, Anderson is required to show that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Middleton, 103 S.W.3d at 733 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

2023Bradley v. State, 292 S.W.3d 561, 565 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).

2023Bradley v. State, 292 S.W.3d 561, 565 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).

2023“Both parts of the Strickland test must be fulfilled; if [the movant] fails to prove either one, no relief can be granted.” Clayton v. State, 63 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Mo. banc 2001). 7 I.

2023“Both parts of the Strickland test must be fulfilled; if [the movant] fails to prove either one, no relief can be granted.” Clayton v. State, 63 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Mo. banc 2001). 7 I.

2014Buckner v. State, 35 S.W.3d 417, 420 (Mo.App.2000).

2014Buckner v. State, 35 S.W.3d 417, 420 (Mo.App.2000).

2006“If the [movant] fails to satisfy one of the two prongs of the Strickland test, we are not compelled to address the other prong and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.” Dorsey v. State, 113 S.W.3d 311, 314 (Mo.App.

2006“If the [movant] fails to satisfy one of the two prongs of the Strickland test, we are not compelled to address the other prong and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.” Dorsey v. State, 113 S.W.3d 311, 314 (Mo.App.

2010In Hill , the Supreme Court extended the Strickland analysis to guilty plea proceedings, noting that “our justifications for imposing the ‘prejudice’ requirement ... are also relevant in the context of guilty pleas.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 57 , 106 S.Ct. 366 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

2010In Hill , the Supreme Court extended the Strickland analysis to guilty plea proceedings, noting that “our justifications for imposing the ‘prejudice’ requirement ... are also relevant in the context of guilty pleas.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 57 , 106 S.Ct. 366 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

2019Further, to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness, the Strickland standard requires a showing that "1) [t]rial counsel knew or should have known of the existence of the witness; 2) the witness could be located through reasonable investigation; 3) the witness would testify, and 4) the witness's testimony would have produced a viable defense." Worthington , 166 S.W.3d at 577 .

2019Further, to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness, the Strickland standard requires a showing that "1) [t]rial counsel knew or should have known of the existence of the witness; 2) the witness could be located through reasonable investigation; 3) the witness would testify, and 4) the witness's testimony would have produced a viable defense." Worthington , 166 S.W.3d at 577 .

2017To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, [the defendant] must demonstrate that, absent the claimed errors by trial counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different, Id.

2017To satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test, [the defendant] must demonstrate that, absent the claimed errors by trial counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different, Id.

1993Amrine, 785 S.W.2d at 535 . *186 It is unnecessary for this court to decide whether an actual conflict of interest existed because Walden has not proved that he was adversely affected by counsel’s representation of Kelly, which is the second prong of the Strickland test.

1993Amrine, 785 S.W.2d at 535 . *186 It is unnecessary for this court to decide whether an actual conflict of interest existed because Walden has not proved that he was adversely affected by counsel’s representation of Kelly, which is the second prong of the Strickland test.

2024See D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 784 n.11 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 668 ).

2024See D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 784 n.11 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 668 ).

2023Wilkes v. State, 82 S.W.3d 925, 929 (Mo. banc 2002).

2023Wilkes v. State, 82 S.W.3d 925, 929 (Mo. banc 2002).

2025“The movant has the burden of proving the movant’s claims for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.” Rule 29.15(i). 6 Analysis In his Point, Wright claims the motion court clearly erred in denying Claim 8/9(b) of his amended motion “because appellate counsel renders ineffective assistance in failing to raise an apparent and nonfrivolous claim on appeal, in that the Batson claim as to Venireperson 47 was apparent from the record, known to appellate counsel, and was nonfrivolous with a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.” “To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective

2025“The movant has the burden of proving the movant’s claims for relief by a preponderance of the evidence.” Rule 29.15(i). 6 Analysis In his Point, Wright claims the motion court clearly erred in denying Claim 8/9(b) of his amended motion “because appellate counsel renders ineffective assistance in failing to raise an apparent and nonfrivolous claim on appeal, in that the Batson claim as to Venireperson 47 was apparent from the record, known to appellate counsel, and was nonfrivolous with a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.” “To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective