Opinion ID: 163763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Strickland Framework

Text: 25 In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the Supreme Court articulated two elements a petitioner must show to demonstrate ineffective assistance. First, petitioner must demonstrate that her attorney's performance was deficient and fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In applying this test, we review counsel's performance with great deference and recognize that counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. We consider all the circumstances, making every effort to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Petitioner must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. Id. (quotations omitted). But the mere incantation of `strategy' does not insulate attorney behavior from review. Fisher v. Gibson, 282 F.3d 1283, 1296 (10th Cir. 2002). We must consider whether that strategy was objectively reasonable. Id. at 1305; Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 481, 120 S.Ct. 1029, 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000). 26 Second, petitioner must show that the trial counsel's deficient performance prejudiced her and deprived her of a fair trial with a reliable result, which requires a showing that 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, 104 S.Ct. 2052; see also Bullock v. Carver, 297 F.3d 1036, 1043-54 (10th Cir. 2002). 27