Opinion ID: 2830287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Strickland’s Two-Pronged Test

Text: Under the Sixth Amendment, criminal defendants have the right to effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685–86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063 (1984). To prove that counsel was ineffective, a defendant must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Id. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. As to Strickland’s first prong, a defendant “must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 104, 131 S. Ct. 770, 787 (2011) (quotation marks omitted). We apply “a strong presumption that counsel’s representation was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). A 3 The parties contest whether the district court should have applied the additionally deferential standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) in this case. The State argues that § 2254(d) deference is due to the state courts’ rejection of Barrett’s claim, while Barrett argues that such deference would be inappropriate here. We need not decide this issue. Assuming Barrett is correct that § 2254(d) deference does not apply, we nonetheless conclude that the district court properly denied his § 2254 petition. 9 Case: 13-15153 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 Page: 10 of 20 court cannot adjudge counsel’s performance to be ineffective “as long as the approach taken might be considered sound trial strategy.” Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1314 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). This presumption of reasonableness is even stronger where we examine the performance of experienced trial counsel. Id. at 1316. A defendant challenging counsel’s failure to take an action at trial must establish that “no competent counsel” would have declined to take the action. See Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1315 & n.17. As to Strickland’s prejudice prong, a defendant must show “that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. Specifically, a defendant must establish that there is a “reasonable probability” that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068. Barrett bears the burden of proof on both prongs of his ineffective-counsel claim. See Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1176 (11th Cir. 2001). If we conclude that Barrett failed to carry his burden as to one of the two prongs, we need not address the other. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S. Ct. at 2069. 10 Case: 13-15153 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 Page: 11 of 20