Opinion ID: 857090
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to communicate

Text: Warren next alleges a variety of communication- based errors. He says that Wynn did not adequately explain the original intentional homicide charge. Warren also alleges that Wynn neither provided him with a copy of the police report containing the Washingtons’ statements nor explained the possibility of mounting a self-defense affirmative defense with him. As with the initial failure to investigate claim, the state court bypassed Warren’s claim, so our review is de novo. Cone, 556 U.S. at 472. Strickland itself provides that an attorney can fall below the objectively reasonable level of performance by failing to “keep the defendant informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution.” 466 U.S. at 688. But, even assuming that Wynn’s performance failed to meet the standard in this case (and we need not opine on that), to find a constitutional violation, we must find prejudice to the defendant. Id. at 687. “[I]n order to satisfy the ‘prejudice’ requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have in- sisted on going to trial.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 59. The crux of Warren’s argument is that, had he been aware of the information he alleges Wynn withheld, he would have gone to trial and claimed self-defense. When a petitioner makes that claim, our prejudice analysis “will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial.” Id. Moreover, this analysis “should be made objectively, without regard for the idiosyncrasies of the particular decisionmaker.” Id. at 60 18 No. 12-1148 (internal quotation marks omitted). As we described above, there is simply nothing that would lead us to conclude that it is reasonably probable that the selfdefense argument would have succeeded or that it would have been objectively reasonable to reject the plea deal. Accordingly, Warren cannot prove prejudice, and therefore cannot prevail on this ineffective assistance claim.