Supreme Court of Missouri· 6/30/2006

Anderson v. State

Citations

196 S.W.3d 28
2006 Mo. LEXIS 79
2006 WL 1883128

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that satisfaction of prejudice prong of Strickland test requires showing of reasonable probability that but for ineffective assistance of counsel, the result of the proceeding would have been different
holding counsel is not ineffective for pursuing one trial strategy to the exclusion of another
noting that a determination on direct appeal that there was “no error of law” precludes relitigation in a Rule 29.15 motion even following plain error review and distinguishing a finding of “no plain error”
“[A] finding of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a level of prejudice below that required for plain error.”
“[f]ailure to strike a juror [who] is unfit to serve because of ... an improper predisposition is a structural error” from which it is presumed that prejudice resulted
to satisfy the prejudice prong under the Strickland test, movant is required to show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

176 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.