Opinion ID: 1745774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cabello was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the first phase of his trial in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Text: Initially, Cabello contends that his case suffered due to the ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase of his trial. No post-conviction motion would be complete without this allegation of error. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984), the United States Supreme Court established a two-prong test, required to prove the ineffective assistance of counsel: the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. See also, Wiley v. State, 517 So.2d 1373, 1378 (Miss. 1987); King v. State, 503 So.2d 271, 273 (Miss. 1987); Caldwell v. State, 481 So.2d 850, 852 (Miss. 1985); Leatherwood v. State, 473 So.2d 964, 968 (Miss. 1985); Lambert v. State, 462 So.2d 308, 316 (Miss. 1984); Thames v. State, 454 So.2d 486, 487 (Miss. 1984). The burden of proof then rests with the movant. Leatherwood, 473 So.2d at 968. Under the first prong, there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d at 694. See also, Wiley, 517 So.2d at 1378; Caldwell, 481 So.2d at 852. In short, defense counsel is presumed competent. Jackson v. State, 476 So.2d 1195, 1204 (Miss. 1985). Under the second prong, even if counsel's conduct is professionally unreasonable, the judgment stands if the error had no effect on the judgment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d at 696. See also, Irving v. State 498 So.2d 305, 317 (Miss. 1986); Perkins v. State, 487 So.2d 791, 793 (Miss. 1986); Billiot v. State, 478 So.2d 1043, 1046 (Miss. 1985). Consequently, the movant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. See also, Wiley, 517 So.2d at 1378, Johnson v. State, 511 So.2d 1333, 1339 (Miss. 1987); Dufour v. State, 483 So.2d 307, 310 (Miss. 1985). There is no constitutional right then to errorless counsel. Johnson, 511 So.2d at 1340. Within the framework, Cabello cites a variety of errors.