prejudice prong test (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

prejudice prong test in Missouri

60 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 10 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (20)

CaseFollowedCited
Anderson v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2002 · cited in 11 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2025
2 sentences

2025“If the movant fails to satisfy either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test, then we need not consider the other[,] and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 10 must fail.” Anderson v. State, 66 S.W.3d 770, 775 (Mo. App. 2002); Blade v. State, 685 S.W.3d 633 , 638 (Mo. App. 2024).

2024"If the movant fails to satisfy either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test, then we need not consider the other[,] and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail." Anderson v. State, 66 S.W.3d 770, 775 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002).

711
Johnson v. Stategreen
moctapp · 1999 · cited in 4 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2010–2014
2 sentences

2014“Should a movant fail to satisfy either the performance prong or the prejudice prong of the test, the other prong need not be considered.” Johnson v. State, 5 S.W.3d 588, 590 (Mo.App.W.D.1999).

2010“Should a mov-ant fail to satisfy either the performance prong or the prejudice prong of the test, the other prong need not be considered.” Johnson v. State, 5 S.W.3d 588, 590 (Mo.App.1999).

44
Patrick v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2005 · cited in 4 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2012
2 sentences

2012S.D.2007). “ ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” Moss v. State, 10 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Mo. banc 2000) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 2068 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). “ ‘If either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test is not met, then we need not consider the other, and Movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.’ ” Chaney, 223 S.W.3d at 206 (quoting Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo.App.

2011Beaeh, 220 S.W.3d at 363 . “ ‘If either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test is not met, then we need not consider the other, and Movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.’ ” Chaney v. State, 223 S.W.3d at 206 (quoting Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo.App.

44
State v. Simmonsgreen
mo · 1997 · cited in 16 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1999–2016
2 sentences

2012The prejudice prong of the test will be satisfied if Hays shows a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.

2012The prejudice prong of the test will be satisfied if Hays shows a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.

316
State v. Nunleygreen
mo · 1998 · cited in 5 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2005
2 sentences

2005State v. Nunley, 980 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo. banc 1998) (cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1100 , 119 S.Ct. 1580 , 143 L.Ed.2d 674 (1999)).

2005Id.

35
Chaney v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2007 · cited in 3 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2011–2012
2 sentences

2012S.D.2007). “ ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” Moss v. State, 10 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Mo. banc 2000) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 2068 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). “ ‘If either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test is not met, then we need not consider the other, and Movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.’ ” Chaney, 223 S.W.3d at 206 (quoting Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo.App.

2011Movant must show but for the conduct of his trial attorney about which he complains, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial. “ ‘If either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test is not met, then we need not consider the other, and Movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.’ ” Chaney v. State, 223 S.W.3d 200, 206 (Mo.App.

23
Deck v. Stategreen
mo · 2002 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2014–2023
2 sentences

2023"The ultimate determination in a post-conviction relief case is 'whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel, such that this Court's confidence in the fairness of the proceeding is undermined.'" Hoeber, 488 S.W.3d at 657 (quoting Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 428 (Mo. banc 2002)).

2014“Prejudice occurs when ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Johnson, 406 S.W.3d at 899 (quoting Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 429 (Mo. banc 2002)).

22
Sanders v. Stategreen
mo · 1987 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1988–1989
2 sentences

1989Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987).

1988This ground is denied.” Sanders, 738 S.W.2d 856 , teaches that a prisoner seeking post-conviction relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy both the performance prong and the prejudice prong of the test articulated there.

12
Miller v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016By pleading guilty, a defendant “waive[s] any claim that counsel was ineffective except to the extent that the conduct affected the voluntariness and knowledge with which the plea was made.” Miller v. State, 260 S.W.3d 393, 394 (Mo. App. W.D.2008).

11
Marschke v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015See Marschke v. State, 185 S.W.3d 295, 302 (Mo.App.2006).

11
Williams v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013“Should a movant fail to satisfy either the performance prong or the prejudice prong of the test, the other prong need not' be considered.” Williams v. State, 304 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Mo.App.

11
Eichelberger v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012Eichelberger v. State, 134 S.W.3d 790, 792 (Mo.App.

11
Moss v. Stategreen
mo · 2000 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012S.D.2007). “ ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” Moss v. State, 10 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Mo. banc 2000) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 2068 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). “ ‘If either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test is not met, then we need not consider the other, and Movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.’ ” Chaney, 223 S.W.3d at 206 (quoting Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo.App.

11
Eddy v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010“If either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test is not met, then we need not consider the other, and the movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.” Eddy v. State, 176 S.W.3d 214, 217 (Mo.App.

11
Hamilton v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009Hamilton v. State, 208 S.W.3d 344, 348 (Mo.App.

11
Sexton v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007Where, as here, there is a negotiated plea of guilty, a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial except to the extent it impinges upon the volun-tarine'sst and knowledge with which the guilty plea was made.” Cupp, 935 S.W.2d at 368 . ‘An Alford plea is not treated differently- than a guilty plea where the accused admits the commission of the crime charged.” Id. “ ‘As with any guilty plea, an Alford plea is valid if it “represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Sexton v. State, 36 S.W.3d 782, 7

11
Goudeau v. Stategreen
moctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
11
Holloway v. Stategreen
moctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
11
State v. Hallgreen
mo · 1998 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
11
Daniels v. Stategreen
moctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2025To satisfy the prejudice prong of the test and demonstrate the requisite prejudice, Knapp was required to show 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 .

2025To satisfy the prejudice prong of the test and demonstrate the requisite prejudice, Emmerson must show 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 .

121991–2025
Cupp v. State green
moctapp · 1996
2 sentences

2010Where, as here, there is a negotiated plea of guilty, a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial except to the extent it impinges upon the voluntariness and knowledge with which the plea of guilty was made.” Cupp, 935 S.W.2d at 368 .

2010Where, as here, there is a negotiated plea of guilty, a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial except to the extent it impinges upon the voluntariness and knowledge with which the plea of guilty was made.” Cupp, 935 S.W.2d at 368 .

32007–2010
Rojas-Ortega v. United States green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2005State v. Nunley, 980 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo. banc 1998) (cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1100 , 119 S.Ct. 1580 , 143 L.Ed.2d 674 (1999)).

2000State v. Nunley, 980 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1100 , 119 S.Ct. 1580 , 143 L.Ed.2d 674 (1999).

32000–2005
Nunley v. Missouri green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2005State v. Nunley, 980 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo. banc 1998) (cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1100 , 119 S.Ct. 1580 , 143 L.Ed.2d 674 (1999)).

2000State v. Nunley, 980 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1100 , 119 S.Ct. 1580 , 143 L.Ed.2d 674 (1999).

32000–2005
Hubbard v. State green
moctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2023“Instead, in such a situation, [w]ith respect to the prejudice prong of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [the movant] need only demonstrate a reasonable probability that he was incompetent, sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023“This is a lower burden of proof than the preponderance standard.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

12023–2023
Edward L. Hoeber v. State of Missouri green
mo · 2016
1 sentence

2023"The ultimate determination in a post-conviction relief case is 'whether defendant has suffered a genuine deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel, such that this Court's confidence in the fairness of the proceeding is undermined.'" Hoeber, 488 S.W.3d at 657 (quoting Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 428 (Mo. banc 2002)).

12023–2023
Berry v. State green
moctapp · 2018
1 sentence

2023“If conviction results from a guilty plea, any claim of [IAC] is immaterial except to the extent that it impinges the voluntariness and knowledge with 2 “The same standard of review is applied when reviewing the grant or denial of a Rule 24.035 or Rule 29.15 motion.” Berry v. State, 551 S.W.3d 102 , 107 n.5 (Mo.App. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

12023–2023
State Ex Rel. Amrine v. Roper green
mo · 2003
1 sentence

2016Id.

12016–2016
Tilley v. State green
moctapp · 2006
1 sentence

2016Id. at 733-34 .

12016–2016
Frederick W. Thornton v. State of Missouri green
moctapp · 2014
1 sentence

2016“If the movant fails to satisfy either the performance prong or the prejudice prong of the test, the appellate court need not consider the other, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.” Id. at 439 .

12016–2016
Taylor v. State green
moctapp · 2013
1 sentence

2015Taylor, 403 S.W.3d at 686 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ).

12015–2015
Johnson v. State green
mo · 2013
1 sentence

2014“Prejudice occurs when ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Johnson, 406 S.W.3d at 899 (quoting Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 429 (Mo. banc 2002)).

12014–2014
Spells v. State green
moctapp · 2009
1 sentence

2013Id. at 346 .

12013–2013
Beach v. State green
moctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2011Beaeh, 220 S.W.3d at 363 . “ ‘If either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test is not met, then we need not consider the other, and Movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.’ ” Chaney v. State, 223 S.W.3d at 206 (quoting Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo.App.

12011–2011
Terry Allen Bouchillon v. James A. Collins, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division green
ca5 · 1990
12000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.015 (13) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 558.016 (7) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.050 (5) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.062 (5) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 575.150 (4) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 556.046 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.020 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.021 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.110 (3) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 570.030 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TN 366 (1998–2026) PA 74 (1994–2026) MO 60 (1988–2025) IA 30 (1989–2025) IL 29 (1990–2025) IN 26 (1997–2018) OH 25 (1999–2026) GA 22 (2003–2023) FL 21 (1988–2018) MI 21 (2011–2025) WI 13 (1993–2025) NM 12 (1991–2025) WA 12 (1988–2026) KS 12 (2006–2024) CT 11 (2002–2026) TX 9 (1996–2026) LA 7 (2000–2017) CA 7 (1993–2025) UT 5 (2011–2025) NE 4 (2018–2021) MS 4 (1997–2008) MD 3 (1992–2012) ID 3 (2010–2024) NJ 3 (1999–2004) AL 2 (2000–2004) SC 2 (2004–2024) VA 2 (1996–1997) SD 2 (1999–2013) AZ 2 (2012–2017) OR 2 (2017–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check